BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Manchester City Council Bill [ Lords] and Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [ Lords]

Motion made, and Question (15 January) again proposed,
	That the promoters of the Manchester City Council Bill [ Lords] and Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [ Lords], which were originally introduced in the House of Lords in Session 2006-07 on 21 January 2007, may have leave to proceed with the Bills in the current Session according to the provisions of Standing Order 188B (Revival of bills).—( The  First Deputy  Chairman of Ways and Means).

Hon. Members: Object.
	 The debate stood adjourned; to be resumed on Thursday 5 February.

Canterbury City Council Bill, Leeds City Council Bill, Nottingham City Council Bill and Reading Borough Council Bill

Motion made, and Question (15 January) again proposed,
	That the promoters of the Canterbury City Council Bill, Leeds City Council Bill, Nottingham City Council Bill and Reading Borough Council Bill, which were originally introduced in this House in Session 2007-08 on 22 January 2008, may have leave to proceed with the Bills in the current Session according to the provisions of Standing Order 188B (Revival of bills).—( The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means).

Hon. Members: Object.
	 The debate stood adjourned; to be resumed on Thursday 5 February.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

INNOVATION, UNIVERSITIES AND SKILLS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Student Finance

Lindsay Hoyle: How many people defaulted on student loan repayments in each of the last two years.

David Lammy: Figures for England show that about 90,000 student loan borrowers defaulted on student loan repayments for a month or longer in each of the last two years. In 1998, we introduced income-contingent repayment loans. It is generally not possible to default on those loans.

Lindsay Hoyle: Obviously, the shock is the fact that 90,000 people defaulted; I am sure that the Minister is very worried about that, too. What extra support can we provide to assist students during the current economic crisis? The reach of credit crunch does not stop; it affects everyone, and, obviously, students are facing that pressure. What extra help can we give students, so as to ensure that people still feel they can go to university and are not frightened off from doing so? That is key for the future; what can the Minister say to us about that?

David Lammy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for championing this issue; he has done so not only in relation to his constituency of Chorley, but by bringing it constantly to the attention of Ministers. Under the old-style loans introduced by the Conservatives in the 1990s, there can, effectively, be a default after just a month of debt, and, as my hon. Friend will understand, students often move accommodation and move in and out of jobs, so that 90,000 figure makes the problem of serious default—default for longer than six months and up to a year—appear a lot larger than it actually is. In terms of new graduates coming out of university in the autumn, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met student recruiters and those responsible for careers in our higher education system just before Christmas, and I will meet them again this week. We are looking at an internship scheme, and at encouraging employers in the private, public and third sectors to over-recruit into it. We have also increased career development loans—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say that perhaps the Minister can write to the hon. Gentleman on this issue?

Tim Boswell: While absolutely not wanting to discourage any overseas student from coming to this country, can I have the Minister's assurance that he will pay particular attention to the position of overseas-domiciled students who can now avail themselves of student loans, because if there is any suggestion that this country is a soft touch and that those students can come here and then will not have to repay their loans, that will run the risk of discrediting the whole show?

David Lammy: I know the hon. Gentleman has taken up this issue and asked questions about it, and I want to reassure him that European legislation will ensure that we are able to engage closely with the tax agencies in European countries. That will enable us to collect the right details to ensure that students coming here from Europe repay the loans they have taken out to pursue their education in this country.

Anne Begg: While defaulting on their loan is always difficult for any student, may I advise my right hon. Friend not to go down the same route as in Scotland, where one political party promised that it would write off all student debt? It got elected and discovered that it could not do that, and that there is no such quick fix. [Hon. Members: "Which party?] It was the Scottish National party. Students voted believing it was going to deliver on that promise, but it turned out to be a mirage. Can I get the assurance that this Government will not give such false hope to students?

David Lammy: That was a shameless act of politicking because, in the end, it was taxpayers' money that was involved. It was a foolish thing to do, and I can assure my hon. Friend that we will not be doing that on this side of the border.

Evan Harris: While I accept that the income-contingent loans are better than what went before, does the Minister accept that the level of graduate debt is much higher now than it was 10 years ago, and will he further accept that it tends to hit women graduates harder because they stay in debt longer for reasons we understand?

David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the repayments of the loans kick in once income reaches a sufficient level, that there are repayment holidays for people if they fall on hard times, and that there are exceptions, such as for those with disabilities or mental illness. It is true that this is a loan system, but the terms of those loans are the best available in the country.

David Willetts: The Minister referred to his national internship scheme. Will he confirm that after I spent a Saturday afternoon chasing him round the TV studios, it became clear that there is no Government-funded national internship scheme and that the companies that he has identified as providing internships made it clear that no extra internships were intended on top of the ones already announced? Will he also confirm that the Government made a clear commitment to review the student loan regime, that the review will take place this year and that the review of student finance will look forward to ideas for the future and not simply be historical?

David Lammy: The first thing to say is that we are doing all we can to work with employers, careers services in universities, the National Union of Students and students themselves to ensure that students have the best choice and the best portfolio of things they can do when they graduate in the autumn. That compares very well with what was effectively the youth training scheme—YTS—when the Conservatives were in power; nothing was offered then.  [Interruption.] The internship scheme was begun in a conversation that the Secretary of State had before Christmas with Microsoft, Barclays and others. I have continued those conversations—indeed, I was talking to Barnado's just yesterday. So, there will be an increase in internships later in the year, and that will happen alongside the career development loans and all the other things that will be on offer at the end of the year. As the president of the NUS has said, this is not a time for panic; it is a time for proper information. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to bear that in mind when he is making public statements.

Stephen Williams: Students who graduate in about five months' time will probably face an uncertain future, and many of them will never have experienced a recession before. Even those who get a job will still face a pernicious repayment regime for their student loans—a 9 per cent. flat-rate tax and a relatively unfair rate of interest. The rate of interest is meant to be subsidised by the Government, but it is at 3 per cent., and that is above the bank lending rate and above the probable expected rate of inflation, which is zero. Is it not time that we had more flexible arrangements for setting that rate of interest, to ensure that graduates are not being penalised at this uncertain economic time?

David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman calls for flexibility. Is that the Lib Dem approach to fees—saying one thing at the election and something else afterwards? Could he cite one bank in the country where someone could get a loan at a rate as low as the current retail prices index? He could not, but that, in effect, is what is available to students.

Motor Industry

David Drew: If he will bring forward proposals to improve training opportunities for those employed in the motor industry.

John Denham: Earlier this week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform announced a £2 billion package to support the automotive industry for the future, and skills support is an integral part of that. Train to Gain has already been developed to meet the specific needs of the automotive sector. We announced on Tuesday our willingness to boost Government investment in skills for the sector through Train to Gain from £65 million to £100 million. My officials are now working with range of companies on training packages that will help work forces be ready for the upturn.

David Drew: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, and I very much welcome the statement made earlier in the week. Will he just say how wide his definition of the motor industry is, because we are not just talking about the car industry, and we must ensure that there are opportunities for component suppliers and the heavy goods side of the industry? Does he understand the problem for people on short-time working, which is that although they welcome the opportunity to train and upskill themselves, they have to buy their time for training? They should not be losing out twofold: by being on short-time working and having to pay the time for their own training. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government should examine that problem and provide help?

John Denham: I welcome what my hon. Friend has said. He will be aware that none of what I have been talking about would be possible if the Conservative policy to abolish Train to Gain had been implemented.  [Interruption.] I think that a cut of £1 billion was the suggestion.
	We have already taken up arrangements with Nissan and JCB—that gives a sense of the breadth of the approach—to provide training on down days when there is short-time working. Ensuring that we can do that is a key, flexible use of our training money, but it would be cut by the Conservative party.

Julie Kirkbride: Can the Secretary of State clarify what new money will be available for the motor industry in a broader context and for training, given that when the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, the hon. Member for Dudley, South (Ian Pearson), announced the package to the House earlier this week, he said that it was entirely consistent with the pre-Budget report that was announced in November?

John Denham: That is absolutely right, but what we have been doing is changing the way in which the Train to Gain system operates to meet the needs of businesses in the downturn. So in addition to the money that we are making available to the automotive industry that is perhaps intended for some of the larger companies, we have also said that up to £350 million of Train to Gain money would be available in small packages for small and medium enterprises. We are keen that that should also be used by component suppliers and others in the automotive industry. The critical point is that while we are building investment in Train to Gain to £1 billion a year, following the pre-Budget report, the hon. Lady's party has said that it would do away with that funding. That is the wrong thing to do.

Lynda Waltho: I agree with my right hon. Friend that to abolish Train to Gain at this point would be absolute madness, and the principal of Stourbridge college—I was speaking to him this morning—agrees. My right hon. Friend has been to Stourbridge and seen the fantastically successful Train to Gain programme there. People are pleased that the programme has been relaxed to include redundant workers. However, especially in light of recent redundancies in the midlands, we need to remove the limit on redundant workers entirely, so that the programme can be responsive to particular local needs and help people train to gain and get back into work.

John Denham: I very much enjoyed my visit with my hon. Friend to her local college in Stourbridge earlier this year and I was very impressed by the work it has done in leading the Train to Gain consortium that would be abolished by the policies of the Conservative party. The truth is that we are making the system more flexible. We are saying to colleges that they will have the option, especially with pre-level 2 skills, of being rewarded for success in getting people into work through training and not just for helping them to achieve an accredited qualification. We are always making the system look more flexible.
	We also announced additional money at the beginning of the month of up to £83 million to create an extra pool of money for further education colleges to respond to the needs of those who have lost their job and been out of work for some time. That will be a flexible package of funding that colleges can tailor to the needs of the individual.

David Evennett: Does not the Secretary of State appreciate that the deadweight cost of Train to Gain and its failure to engage with SMEs is undermining attempts to provide meaningful training? Will he keep the Train to Gain money, but redirect it to apprenticeships and further education colleges that are better placed to respond to local needs?

John Denham: May I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Opposition Front Bench and congratulate him on his appointment? We look forward to continuing the debate with him.
	At the beginning of the month, the deputy director of the CBI addressed a large audience of employers on the subject of the downturn, and he said that Train to Gain is just what business needs. If that is the view of Britain's largest employer organisation, the Conservatives' policies and approach, with their proposals for cuts at exactly the wrong time—£610 million of cuts in my Department to start on 1 April, although they have not explained where those cuts would be made—are wrong, and they need to change.

Andrew Miller: Will my right hon. Friend agree to take a flexible approach to bids that come before him—pursuant to the observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew)—to ensure that both the supply chain and manufacturers obtain benefits from this scheme? Will he also, in the context of my constituency, ensure that there are no delays in developing the West Cheshire college, which will be an integral part of delivering the needs of the vehicle industry in my area?

John Denham: It is not just a matter of being flexible, because we have indicated our willingness to do that. The compact that we have with the sector skills council for the manufacturing sector makes the use of the money much more flexible. Our ideal, actually, is to create a situation where within an area such as my hon. Friend's we can comprehensively address the whole sector—that is, the major lead manufacturer as well as the supply chain. Maintaining the supply chain is every bit as important at the moment as maintaining the main plant. That is what we are aiming to achieve.
	As for west Cheshire—I know that my hon. Friend is ambitious for his college—we have been looking to ensure that the training capacity is already in place to enable us to gear up training for the car industry in the way that he describes.

Higher Education

Brooks Newmark: What progress has been made on widening participation in higher education.

Andrew Robathan: What recent progress has been made on widening participation in higher education.

David Lammy: We continue to make encouraging progress with widening participation in higher education. The latest UCAS figures show that acceptances from England for 2008 are up by 7.4 per cent. on the same point last year, and this year's figures are the highest ever. That means that there are more students in higher education than a year ago, including a higher proportion from poorer backgrounds.

Brooks Newmark: I have a constituent who has been accepted as homeless and is on the homeless register. At 34 weeks pregnant, she has had to drop out of university after being told that until she has the baby, she is ineligible for housing benefit. Is the Minister aware that young people are being forced out of education for that reason and will he take action to ensure that those who fall pregnant while they are in higher education are not penalised?

David Lammy: I am happy to look at the hon. Gentleman's constituent's problem, but I would say that such assistance is dependent on Government finance and the proposals to take £610 million out of my Department will not help.

Andrew Robathan: When I went to Oxford university some 39 years ago in 1970— [ Interruption. ]

Brooks Newmark: He was a bright young thing.

Andrew Robathan: A very young thing. In 1970, the proportion of undergraduates at Oxford and Cambridge who were educated in state schools was higher than it is now. Given that all students at university today have had the majority of their education under this blessed Labour Government, to what does the Minister attribute that almost incredible, somewhat depressing and somewhat shameful statistic?

David Lammy: I do not recognise the statistic. This year there has been a 7.4 per cent. rise in the number of students from poorer backgrounds attending our universities. That must be a good thing. I think that increase is the result of the Aimhigher programme and the Aimhigher associates programme, which brings students back into schools and into their local communities to encourage other students to go into education. It is also the result of the work that the universities are doing through summer schools and classes with parents and students, all of which are designed to ensure that we get better equity across the system in this country. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the system is perfect or that it was perfect when he went to university. There is much that we can do and it ought to be a cross-party issue.

Barry Sheerman: Would my right hon. Friend agree that many universities are performing very well in widening participation? Cambridge has done very well, as opposed to Oxford, by having the same application process as all the other universities. That helps. Will he be more aggressive with the universities? Let us change the culture in many of the leading research universities; let us make them work harder and make them more understandable for working class kids. Working class kids respond to hard work and our universities do not work hard enough at the moment.

David Lammy: I know that my hon. Friend is something of an expert on that issue. I hope that he would agree that we are seeing a cultural shift, particularly among our most selective universities, and that he will welcome the group of 11 initiatives. Eleven of our most selective universities—the number is increasing—are coming together to pool and share the systems by which they widen participation, to learn from each other and to ensure that a student from a poorer background in the south of England who has benefited from one of the summer schools or classes can go to a university in the north of England. All that work will be going on over the next few months.

Virendra Sharma: Youngsters in my constituency do not always have role models who have been to university. What is my right hon. Friend doing to increase mentoring in schools and colleges?

David Lammy: I am truly grateful for the interest that my hon. Friend continues to take in his constituency, which is very similar to mine. I know that he will welcome the work that Aimhigher associates are doing; these are young people who have been to university, who come back to school to work with young people in their home communities. I hope he will also recognise that good work is going on, led by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, through the reach programme, which is about encouraging young people, often from ethnic minority backgrounds, to aspire to go to university.

Patrick Cormack: I have always believed that the re-designation by the Conservative Government of polytechnics as universities blurred the distinction between vocational and academic education and was a profound mistake. Could the right hon. Gentleman assure me and the House that in these straitened times everything possible will be done to stress that vocational is not second best, and that there are many people in this country whose potential can be challenged not by pseudo-academic courses but by rigorous vocational training?

David Lammy: I hope that the hon. Gentleman knows that I would absolutely agree with him on that. He is absolutely right that there has been an artificial divide in Britain, for all of the 20th century and into this one, between what we have perceived to be vocational and academic. I would encourage him to look at this year's research assessment exercise results, which show that there is excellence to be found in our newer unversities, just as in our old ones.

Clive Efford: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the figures that he just read out, welcome though they are, have been achieved in spite of some of the approaches taken by some of the top universities? Does he agree that they could do more to encourage young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, especially early in their education, perhaps as early as primary school or middle school age, to raise their aspirations so that they might be better qualified to apply to those universities when they reach school-leaving age?

David Lammy: We could all do more. The universities recognise that there is more to do, which is why the group of 11 universities have come together to launch initiatives to ensure fair access to the most selective universities. The work of the National Council for Educational Excellence has made it clear, however, that schools could do more. My hon. Friend will also recognise that there are schools in our constituencies where the teachers themselves need to aspire to the very best for those young people and connect up to those universities, and where educational advice and guidance needs to be better.

John Hayes: Broadening access to higher education is critical to promoting the social justice that Conservatives crave, but social mobility has stalled since 1997. Although £2 million a year is spent on widening access, the participation rate of working-class children has risen by just 1 per cent. The report that the Secretary of State commissioned from Christine King, which he dismissed as provocative, says that flexible funding and learning is central to improving access. Surely we must build on the work of the Open university, Birkbeck and others who provide flexible learning; so will the Minister say whether the Government will back Professor King's recommendations? One does not have to be Mastermind to recognise that flexible learning is the key to improving access.

David Lammy: But equally, one does not have to be Mastermind to know that a £610 million cut to our Department's budget—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that a few hundred words have been said about the Conservative party policy, and that must cease. It is for the Conservatives to let the world know about their policies, not Ministers.

Green-collar Jobs

Kerry McCarthy: What steps he is taking to encourage more people to develop the skills required for green-collar jobs through studying science, engineering and technology subjects at universities.

Si�n Simon: The Government believe that we should take a strategic approach to future skills needs. The demands of the low-carbon economy and our future economic challenges tell us that we need more high-level skills in STEMscience, technology, engineering and mathematicssubjects. We have already invested 29 million in additional university student numbers for STEM. We have also invested 76 million for capacity building in strategically important subjects, including STEM. Last week's grant letter to the Higher Education Funding Council set out the need for further investment in STEM and for universities to meet the needs of employers.

Kerry McCarthy: I thank the Minister for that response. Last Friday I visited the university of the West of England, which is keen to play its role in equipping people for green-collar jobs. However, there is a problem that many students who study humanities or arts subjects develop a real interest in environmental issues, but do not have the qualifications to go on to take postgraduate applied science courses. How can the Minister help such students to make the transition into green-collar jobs?

Si�n Simon: I am not surprised to learn that my hon. Friend was recently at her local university because she is a tireless champion of every sector of her constituency. I think that I know the answer to her question. As I understood it, she was asking how we get people who study humanities subjects into the STEM-related, green-collar jobs in which they have become interested. I have to say that the answer is that they need to do STEM-related degrees at university if they want to get STEM-related jobs. We are getting more people into STEM-related jobs, and we will need more, but the message has to go out that if people want modern, innovative, interesting green-sector jobs, they need to do STEM-related subjects at GCSE, A-level and university.

Phil Willis: That was a most helpful comment for someone who has just done an arts degree at university, especially as equivalent level qualification funding has been totally taken away.
	There is support on both sides of the House for the idea of growing the number of STEM undergraduates, because that is exactly what our economy needs. I acknowledge that, since 2004, there has been a slight reverse of the disastrous trend that occurred between 1997 and 2004. However, does the Minister agree that we need to influence what happens in schools, although he has no control over that, and that we need to influence what universities offer, although he has no control over that either? Furthermore, the Secretary of State has just issued a moratorium on additional places in our universities. How will we grow the number of STEM graduates if we stop people going to university?

Si�n Simon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, but I have to tell him that good things happen in government over which we have no control, including what goes on in the Department for Children, Schools and Families, which last year succeeded in increasing the number of applications for STEM A-levels, just as we got the number of STEM university applications up last year. Across the board, we have a commitment to getting young people to do STEM subjects through A-level and on to university.
	The hon. Gentleman said that it was no use telling people who have just done an arts subject to study a STEM degree if they want a STEM-related job. However, I must tell him the hard truth that if people want a STEM-related job, they need to do a STEM-related degree.

Alison Seabeck: What more can my hon. Friend do to encourage schools to work with universities, such as those in Plymouth that have international reputations in marine and environmental science, to encourage people to look to science for a career? Science is vital for green-sector development.

Si�n Simon: My hon. Friend is a tireless advocate of her constituency's educational institutions. Earlier, the Minister of State talked about Aimhigher, which builds exactly such links, and the academies programme is building similar links. Outstanding work is being done in not just her constituency but all over the country.

Tuition Fees

Adrian Sanders: What assessment he has made of the effects of the level of tuition fees on numbers of university applications by those from low-income families.

David Lammy: All the evidence shows that variable tuition fees have not deterred young people from lower-income backgrounds from applying to university. University acceptances for people aged 18 and under from lower socio-economic groups rose by more than 8 per cent. this year alone, demonstrating that we are changing the attitudes and aspirations of young people.

Adrian Sanders: That sounds very encouraging, but it does not match the anecdotal evidence that I hear from young people in my constituency, who cite tuition fees and debt as reasons why they do not aspire to do a higher education course.

David Lammy: When we had the tuition fees debate in the House, I think that there was only one Member of Parliament who had substantial loans and fees to pay, and that was me. Of course young people assess these issues, but at this time, in our economy, they are aware that being a graduate will benefit them in the long term, and over their working life, for 45 years after graduation. I am pleased to see that this year's figures show a rise.

Joan Humble: A recent report by Universities UK confirms the statement that my right hon. Friend just madethat tuition fees have not put students off. It also shows that the number of people going to university from different socio-economic groups was stable until 2007. I welcome the improvement in 2008, which was largely a result of the Government's Aimhigher project and the introduction of new grants. Sadly, I still meet students in schools and colleges who are unaware of the new support for them. Will he work, through schools and colleges, to ensure that those 16 and 17 year olds know of the additional financial support available to them?

David Lammy: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for her championing of those issues in Blackpool; I know that there is still much to do in that city to ensure that young people from poorer backgrounds know about the opportunities that universities can offer them. I hope that she will welcome the advertising campaign that began very recently, which is to run across the country. It reminds young people of the opportunities offered by universities, reminds those from poorer backgrounds that grants are available, and points out that people whose parents have a household income of up to 50,000 can still get a partial grant to get to university.

Science

Angela Watkinson: What steps his Department is taking to support evidence-based policy in scientific matters.

John Denham: This is an important issue, and at my request, the Council for Science and Technology recently published a report with recommendations on how to improve links between the academic community and Government. The research councils provide advice to my Department; we used their expertise in developing our Innovation Nation White Paper. Across Government, the chief scientific adviser, Professor John Beddington, has created a group of departmental chief scientific advisers to give a sharper focus to the contribution that scientific evidence can make on major cross-cutting issues such as climate change.

Angela Watkinson: I thank the Secretary of State for his reply, but in the report to which he referredthe Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills report published in December 2008his chief scientific adviser appears to want not to promote evidence-based science in Government, but rather to defend Government policy, or explain the absence of clear Government policy. How does the Secretary of State intend to develop evidence-based science within Government if his own chief scientific adviser seems unable to do so?

John Denham: There are two important points to make. First, the whole point of having a Government chief scientific adviserhe is based in my Department because he has to be based somewhereis that he is independent of Ministers. It would be quite wrong of me to suggest at the Dispatch Box that he is accountable to me for the advice that he gives. I appreciate enormously the work that he is doing to ensure that there is a chief scientific adviser in every Government Department where it matters, and to raise the status of that scientific advice. I have said this on record many timesI said it to the Select Committee recentlybut I will say it again: the Government have got much better at using scientific advice, but they are not yet as good at doing that as they could be. I see it as one of my jobs to champion the matter among Ministers.

Adam Afriyie: The DIUS Committee has severely criticised the Secretary of State's Department for its presentation of data, and partly for a lack of evidence-based policy making, so we were surprised to read this week in  The Times that Lord Drayson wants to decide where Government research spending is allocated. That would be in direct contravention of the established Haldane principle. Does the Secretary of State agree with his Science Ministers changing Government policy?

John Denham: I made what I hoped was a reasonably important speech about the Haldane principle earlier this year. I made it clear that we respect the Haldane principle and that it is the research councils that decide who gets research grants. I also made the point, however, that Ministers and Government have a legitimate interest in the broad shape of research; for example, Ministers have encouraged the multidisciplinary programme across the research councils on living with environmental change, because we believe that that is one of the major challenges facing our society. That is quite different from Ministers deciding which research groups on which research issues should get funding. That is how I believe the Haldane principle should be interpreted in the 21st century, and I think there is a consensus on that among most, if not all, of the scientific community.

Research and Development

John Robertson: What steps he plans to take to maintain levels of spending on science, research and development initiatives in higher education institutions during the economic downturn.

John Denham: Government investment in research is rising to a record level of 6 billion by 2010-11. Yesterday, the Higher Education Funding Council for England set out to the sector how it will distribute research funding to universities, reflecting the approach in my grant letter to the council. I believe that in the current economic climate, it is vital to continue to invest in science and research. We will resist calls from others to reduce the amount of money that we spend in our Department.

John Robertson: My right hon. Friend has practically answered my next question. In the new economy, we are dealing with issues such as Digital Britain, renewables and nuclear. The universities in Scotland are underfunded. We are not getting the same funding as universities down south, yet we supply some of the best research and development in the whole world. Will he look into that issue and find some way to help those universities, which in the end will help the economy and this country?

John Denham: My hon. Friend raises an important point. It is actually the case that the excellence of research in Scottish universities at present means that Scotland gets a disproportionately large share of the UK science budget. The problem is that for a year or two now, there has been a systematic approach to underfunding those universities. The real concern that people in Scotland should have about the universities and all of us in the UK should have about world class research is that that approach cannot go on for ever without undermining the very excellence that we will rely on for the nuclear industry, renewable energy and low-carbon manufacturing in the future. I hope my hon. Friend will continue his campaign to change those policies, which are threatening those universities.

Charles Kennedy: On that last point about the Scottish universities, I want to follow on from the question of the hon. Member for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson), having declared my interest as rector of Glasgow university. May I draw to the Secretary of State's attention the comment reported in  The Herald today from the principal of Strathclyde university? I am being very inclusive. The comment is a reflection on the debateI put it no more strongly than thatwithin the Russell group and further afield in Scotland in particular about the perceived efforts of the Executive to shift research and its funding into their assessment of the needs of the Scottish economic situation and jobs market? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the flexibility and the independence of the universities to concentrate on their perceived research needs must remain absolutely to the fore?

John Denham: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave earlier about the Haldane principle, which I hope achieves the right balance between ensuring that the research councils can determine who gets which research grants and what gets funded, and that there is space for the fundamental blue-skies research that might appear today to have no future use at all, but will turn out to be the key to economic developments in 20 years' time, within a sensible discussion about ensuring that we have sufficient capacity across disciplines in areas of great importance to us, as we are doing with the Living with Environmental Change programme. I believe that that balance is the right one. I do not believe that a directive approach from Ministers, thinking that they can second-guess the entire scientific community, would ever be the right way forward.

Julie Morgan: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the funding of Welsh universities? I am sure that he is aware of the massive improvement in the level of world class research in Welsh universities revealed in the last research assessment exercise. It has gone up from 70 per cent. of the English level to 93 per cent. since 2001, but Wales receives disproportionately less money per head of population. Is there anything he can do to nudge the research councils into giving more money to Wales?

John Denham: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns. I have discussed higher education policy with my opposite number at the Assembly; we are keen to work collaboratively, particularly on co-operation between English and Welsh universities. As far as research councils are concerned, we have to defend the principle that the money will go where the excellence is. The research councils will not distribute money on a geographical, regional, national or sub-national basis; it has to go where the excellence is. It is, perhaps, for the Assembly to work with the universities in Wales on how money is distributed, to make sure that the places where excellence can best develop are supported. The money will follow.

Student Finance

Jeremy Wright: Whether he plans to amend the rules determining eligibility for funding for students undertaking an equivalent or lower qualification.

David Lammy: At our request, the Higher Education Funding Council for England is reviewing the impact of the equivalent or lower qualification policy. We will consider the council's advice when we receive it later in the year.

Jeremy Wright: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, and I hope that those who will be affected will find it encouraging. We are starting to appreciate the scale of the economic recession and he has just indicated that the Government are speaking to HEFCE about offering more help to people who become unemployed, particularly in respect of disciplines different from those in which they previously worked. I hope that he will accept that what the Government have previously said about financial support for ELQ students risks giving a very mixed message to those whom the qualification is trying to help.

David Lammy: I hope that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges our announcement on increasing the amount of career development loans available to people who want to do postgraduate study. I hope that he will recognise the 148 million that HEFCE has put into employer co-funded schemes and programmes for people in work and attached to an employer who want to engage in further study. I hope he will also recognise the investment fund that HEFCE has announced for economic challenges. That fund, effectively of 50 million, is to ensure that people across the country are getting the skills to take up employment, reskill, retrain and upskill in these difficult times.

Mark Lancaster: The decision to remove funding for ELQ students was a knee-jerk reaction and a mistake. As unemployment rises in the United Kingdom and people are desperate to retrain, the Government are beginning to look stupid on this issue. Can the Minister simply explain why the decision was taken, and will he at least begin to review it? People are desperate to retrain, and they cannot under this system.

David Lammy: Let us not get into an interpretation of stupid. We have explained the issue a number of times to the hon. Gentleman. Let me say this to him for probably the fifth or sixth time: in respect of people who do not have a first degree, it must be an imperative for the Government to redistribute funds100 millionto benefit them in these difficult times. If he chose to leave and do a second degree, it could not be right for the Government to reward him over someone who had not done a first degree.

Topical Questions

Tom Brake: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

John Denham: We know that now is the time to invest in skills and training to prepare people for the upturn. This would be the very worst time to cut public spending, as some are proposing. Since my Department's last oral questions, we have boosted the number of apprenticeships, which will rise by a further 35,000 next year, and have allocated almost 250 million extra to provide additional training opportunities to those facing or experiencing redundancy. We are working with major employers and the third sector to encourage internships and volunteering, and we are helping people to retrain by trebling the number of professional and career development loans and supporting the Higher Education Funding Council's new 50 million programme to help firms and individuals meet the economic challenges that they face. We have learned the lessons of the past. We will neither abandon people nor push them into incapacity benefit. We are taking action now and providing real help for families and businesses in the downturn.

Tom Brake: I thank the Secretary of State for his reply; I heard what he said in relation to apprenticeships. However, the principal of my local college, Carshalton college, which is very much in the front line as regards apprenticeships and wants to expand, says that there is a shortage of apprenticeships available. What more can the Secretary of State do to stimulate demand for apprenticeships in the public and private sectors, and what can he do to ensure that apprentices who lose their placements as a result of the company that they are working for going bust are able to complete their final qualifications?

John Denham: One of the real challenges for the coming year is to ensure that the public sector plays as big a role as possible in providing apprenticeships. If all the public sector, say in local government, provided as many apprenticeships as the best local authorities, we would make a massive increase in the number of apprenticeships.
	Secondly, we are working with major apprenticeship suppliers such as Rolls-Royce, which is agreeing to train additional apprentices over and above its needs for its own company to provide people for the local work force. As for redundancies, we have ensured that some of the rules and procedures that have prevented people from returning to college to finish the technical qualification part of their apprenticeship have been changed, and we are working with a clearing house to place as many people as possible who lose their jobs with a new employer to fully complete their apprenticeship.

Andrew Slaughter: Ten years of Government funding and commitment mean that apprenticeships such as those delivered by the excellent Ealing, Hammersmith and West London college are a popular mainstream option for my constituents. Does the Minister agree that the plans to cut apprenticeships, from whatever source, would be hugely damaging to businesses and to people?

John Denham: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I would not wish to try your patience, Mr. Speaker, by referring to the policies of the Conservative party; but from wherever a proposal came to cut the apprenticeship programme, for example to stop all apprenticeships for those over 19 this year, it would be a real disaster. We have rescued apprenticeships, and we must not go back to where we were 10 years ago.

David Willetts: The Prime Minister recently promised to bring forward our capital spending programmes, but Members in all parts of the House will have been contacted by further education colleges that are very worried that the opposite is happening, having found that their building programmes are being halted mid-stream. Will the Secretary of State tell the House how many projects have been delayed, what is the value of the projects affected, and why his Department has been so slow to act when it was first informed of this problem last autumn? If he will not take the Prime Minister's requirements for more capital spending seriously, why should the rest of the House?

John Denham: I am grateful for the opportunity to make the position on capital spending absolutely clear. It is thanks to this Government's investment that we will spend 2.3 billion over this spending period. There is no freeze in that spending programme. There is no question but that the 110 million brought forward for this year and the 100 million brought forward for next year will be spent. The issue is that the Learning and Skills Council decided in December to defer a number of proposals awaiting approval, and there are others in the pipeline. It did so so that it could assess the likely impact of the downturn on the viability of future proposals. It does not in any way affect the more than 250 projects that are already under way. However, of course there are concerns for colleges that are in the pipeline and looking for approval. That is why the LSC is appointing Sir Andrew Foster, at my request, to undertake an independent review of how the current situation for future projects came about. I hope that by March there will be a clear way forward for colleges currently facing some uncertainty. However, I must stress that there is no question of the money that has been allocated for this spending review not being spent; indeed, the spending profile has been brought forward.

Graham Allen: Those are reassuring words from the Secretary of State, particularly for colleges such as my local college, Basford Hall in Nottingham, which has submitted its plans to the LSC and agreed a way forward, but is caught in the moratorium, which I understand is essentially caused by land deal considerations because the price of land has fallen in the downturnsomething that does not affect my local college, however. Will the Secretary of State make it very clear that we will clear through all those pending applications with extreme urgency so that we are ready to take advantage of an upturn when it comes?

John Denham: All hon. Members champion their local colleges, but I do not think that anybody has championed theirs as enthusiastically as my hon. Friend. Land is one of the issues that the LSC is looking at, because a number of both current and future schemes depend on land sales. Should that be affected by the downturn, we will need to see where we stand. It is important for the LSC to take a comprehensive approach to the programme rather than single out individual items. I am afraid that my hon. Friend will need to wait until we have worked through the current process with the LSC.

Nicholas Winterton: The Federation of Master Builders has stated that some 50 per cent. of its companies will declare redundancies in the next three months. The Construction Products Association has likewise stated that the industry is shedding jobs at an unprecedented rate. Although the Government have announced that they will make more apprenticeships available and that they will bring forward major infrastructure projects, which I warmly welcome, what are they doing to prevent existing apprentices who are currently in post from losing their jobs?

John Denham: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. It reinforces the point that I made earlier about why we are anxious to ensure that when possible, the public sector construction projects that are proceeding include a training agreement for the provision of apprenticeships and other workplace-based learning. Our college programme has already created about 500 apprenticeships through that approach.
	In case people lose their jobs, we are working with the construction industry training board and have established a clearing house so that whenever possible, we can relocate apprentices in another job or enable them to continue their training in college. We are continuing to develop that process and will extend it to other areas of apprenticeships.

Sally Keeble: On research funds, does my right hon. Friend recognise the outstanding work undertaken by the newer universities, particularly Northampton, both in levering in private sector funds to support their research funding and in undertaking research that is directly related to the local jobs situation? That research might be in science, technology, engineering and mathematics-related subjects, but it is also in other subjects, particularly the creative industries and public service development.

John Denham: I recognise the wide range of very useful and sometimes excellent research carried out in universities such as Northampton, which I believe the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), will be visiting in the near future.
	There has been pressure in the past for us to apply an arithmetical approach to distributing research funding, perhaps particularly to the newer universities. Actually, the research assessment exercise that was published recently showed that those universities can win four-star grades for international-quality research purely on the merits of their research, without taking an artificial approach to distributing funding. We have asked the Higher Education Funding Council to recognise that when it comes to distribute research funding in March.

Simon Hughes: On apprenticeships, and given that nearly 50 per cent. of those being laid off are under 25, will the Government consider giving each area's local authority, local college and local chamber of commerce regular information about what opportunities there are, so that it is available for everybody in an agreed place? Will they consider having in each local council area one private sector and one public sector champion of apprenticeships who, by their records, are well placed to take on that role?

David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The London apprenticeship taskforce, which met again this week, is discussing that very issue. Rob Whiteman, the chief executive of the London borough of Barking and Dagenham, is co-ordinating that activity across London councils with the LSC, to ensure that we can increase the number of apprenticeships in constituencies such as the hon. Gentleman's. They will ensure that local authorities and the NHS can do more, along with the many companies in London that, notwithstanding the economic downturn, want to recruit young Londoners to ensure that they benefit from the apprenticeship scheme.

Anne Snelgrove: Swindon needs a university now more than ever to help regeneration and recovery from recession, but if we are successful in our bid, will my right hon. Friend help us work with the university of the West of England to establish a university in the town centre instead of using the Coate Water site, which most people oppose?

John Denham: My hon. Friend has been a considerable champion of Swindon's case for a university. I have visited the town and I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is going there.
	It is not for Ministers in London to intervene in complex planning issues. However, I stress to my hon. Friend and all hon. Members who support new university developments that getting together an agreed local priority is critical to the process. I know that she will do everything she can with the local authority and others to bring people together and get a consensus about the way forward, because that is essential.

Philip Hollobone: An agreed local bid has been put forward for a new university in north Northamptonshire and I am pleased that it has made the shortlist of 27. It has huge potential for job creation and boosting the local economy. What weight will the Higher Education Funding Council give the redevelopment potential of new university applications?

John Denham: As the hon. Gentleman knows from my meeting with him and my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope), who supports the same proposal, it is for the Higher Education Funding Council to determine the successful areas. We hope that it takes into account fundamentally the need locally for higher education but also, when possible, the ability to maximise economic development and regeneration and to bring in partners such as local businesses and the regional development agency. We suspect that those places will receive priority.

Eric Illsley: I listened to what the Secretary of State said about the capital funding programme for colleges. It affects my own collegeso much so that demolition work has already started on it and the funding has been withdrawn. Although the Secretary of State says that there is a review of funding, that the funding is in place and that decisions have been deferred, representatives of Barnsley college went to a meeting with the Learning and Skills Council on 9 January, and they were told that the LSC was reviewing its priorities for all capital programmes, and that no assurance could be given that any individual project would be funded or, if funding was agreed, on when it might be released. It looks as though the LSC is saying one thing and the Secretary of State is saying another. Will he look again at the project? Barnsley college has been left in a difficult position.

John Denham: I need to make it clear that no funding has been withdrawn from any college that has been given final approval to go ahead. [Interruption.] Yes, the final decision. Until a college has been told that it has approval to proceed, it does not have that approval. It is critical to emphasise that there is no question of our not spending all the money that we said we would spend on the FE capital programme. However, colleges in the pipeline that have not yet had approval in detail are affected, and the LSC is addressing that. As I said earlier, I understand the position of colleges that anticipated approval at a specific time and now must wait till March to see what the situation is. That is why I have said to the LSC that I want it to appoint Sir Andrew Foster to undertake an independent review of how the situation has been allowed to develop, but that must not cloud the fact that we will spend the money that we have been given and introduce the capital programme, as promised.

Robert Goodwill: Staff at Yorkshire Coast college in Scarborough have noticed an increase in recently unemployed people coming for training to get back into work as quickly as possible. However, some have had to be turned away because the available funding is for in-work training, such as Train to Gain. Is there a need to rebalance the budgets in the FE sector to take account of the change in the economy?

John Denham: We are deliberately increasing the Train to Gain budget, but the greater part of our resources do not go through that scheme, but go through colleges' adult responsive budget at level 2, level 3 and pre-level 2. We are introducing greater flexibility in those colleges to meet the needs of newly unemployed people and we have recently announced additional money from our resources and the European social fund to provide that flexibility. I therefore hope that we will make a significant move towards tackling the problem that the hon. Gentleman identified.

Business of the House

Alan Duncan: May I ask the right hon. and learned Lady to give us the future business of the House?

Harriet Harman: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 2 FebruaryOpposition Day [3rd allotted day]. There will be a debate entitled Building out of Recession, followed by a debate entitled Legal, Decent, Honest and Truthful: The Case for Urgent Reform of Parliament. Both debates will arise on a Liberal Democrat motion.
	Tuesday 3 FebruaryOpposition Day [4th allotted day]. There will be a debate entitled Skills and Further Education in a Recession, followed by a debate entitled Child Protection. Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion.
	Wednesday 4 FebruaryMotions relating to the police grant and local government finance reports.
	Thursday 5 FebruaryTopical debate, subject to be announced, followed by a general debate on Afghanistan and Pakistan.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 9 February will include:
	Monday 9 FebruaryRemaining stages of the Political Parties and Elections Billday one.
	Tuesday 10 FebruaryMotion to approve a money resolution on the Banking Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Banking Bill.
	Wednesday 11 FebruaryOpposition Day [5th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced, followed if necessary by consideration of Lords Amendments.
	Thursday 12 FebruaryMotions relating to the draft Social Security Benefits Uprating Order 2009 and the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2009.

Alan Duncan: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the future business. I thank her, too, for her observant personal comments last week, which, she will be interested to know, prompted a letter from a lady in Reading who said that she would put these encounters into her weekly diary as He-man meets Harman. I can think of better.
	There has been a sudden delay in the Political Parties and Elections Bill. Will the right hon. and learned Lady tell the House why that has happened? Given her close personal links with the aristocracy, is she not doubly ashamed by the apparent conduct of her four Labour colleagues in the Lords? May we also have a debate on cash for influence in this House? Does not the House of Lords pale into insignificance, given that, because more than 90 per cent. of the Labour party's battleground funding comes from the trade unions, the party remains a wholly owned subsidiary of an interest group with its own policy agenda?
	In looking further at the reputation of Parliament, does the Leader of the House not agree that the permanent encampment in Parliament square has become a national embarrassment? It is a total abuse of the legitimate right to protest. Will she make a statement telling us what plans she has to bang heads together in the various Committees of the House to rid ourselves of this grotty eyesore and restore some dignity to the appearance of this iconic seat of democracy?
	May I salute those Members who attended the Westminster Hall debate on Equitable Life this week? Members of the Opposition parties outnumbered Labour Members by about five to one, which measures the contempt in which the Labour party appears to hold the thousands of responsible, cautious people who saved with Equitable Life

Andrew Miller: Rubbish!

Alan Duncan: We hear shouts of Rubbish from the other side.
	Is it not a disgraceful breach of trust that those people have waited so long and received so little? What hope is there for justice and redress through Parliament if the ombudsman's report is so callously ignored? Does the right hon. and learned Lady have enough sense of justice to make her speak up in Cabinet and to allow a full debate on this matter? Will she commit to doing so now?
	The Government's announcement on mixed-sex wards yesterday was long overdue but totally inadequate. After all, with which member of the Cabinet would the right hon. and learned Lady be willing to share a mixed-sex ward? As a champion of equality, will she now give us a debate on the need to end these wards, so that we can give the House an opportunity to adopt our proposals for getting rid of them and for doubling the number of single rooms in the NHS?
	The latest forecast from the International Monetary Fund suggests that, contrary to the Government's mantra that the United Kingdom is well prepared to deal with the downturn, the UK is actually facing the worst recession in the world. Can we therefore at last have a debate in Government time to allow the House to express its lack of confidence in the Government's handling of the economy, or is the Leader of the House worried that this is yet another issue that would leave the Prime Minister, as reported yesterday, tearful and dewy-eyed?
	It would appear that the Prime Minister has lost confidence in his own Cabinet and, it would seem, even in himself. He has complained that his Cabinet members are ducking interviews and leaving him to look like the Minister for the recession, yet today, curiously, we have learned that Labour MPs have been instructed by the Whips not to talk about the economy at all. So who is going to win the parliamentary BAFTAsthe Glumdog in Despair in Downing street or the Basil Fawltys on the Back Benches shouting, Don't mention the recession? Put simply, when is this country going to get honesty from the Prime Minister about the severity of our plight?

Harriet Harman: The shadow Leader of the House mentioned the investigation into the conduct of a number of Members of the House of Lords and I understand that the Leader of the House of Lords is making a further statement there this morning. As hon. Members will have heard yesterday, the Prime Minister is concerned, as I know we all are, to ensure the highest standards in the House of Lords. Its members should have the privilege of serving there in the public interest, not in their own financial interests. We all need to be satisfied, as the public want to be satisfied, that there are clear and proper rules, that they are properly enforced and that there are adequate sanctions. Baroness Royall, the Leader of the House of Lords, is taking that forward.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the question of Equitable Life. We have been in no doubt about the seriousness of the concern about the effects of these events on people resulting from the mismanagement by Equitable Life management and the failures of regulation, which actually began before this Government took office. We have to recognise, however, that where there have been failures of regulation, there must be an apology and there must be compensation. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury gave an oral statement to the House, setting out how she was planning to take this forward and to ensure that the compensation process could get under way. Today, the financial services ombudsperson[Hon. Members: You can't say that!] Oh, yes I can; sorry, Mr. Speaker, it just slipped out. The ombudsman is giving evidence to the Select Committee today. It is important that we seriously address these matters.
	The shadow Leader of the House also raised the question of mixed-sex wards. A great deal of progress has been made on ensuring that those taken into hospital do not have to go into mixed-sex wards and can go into single-sex wards. Much progress has been made particularly in respect of those having treatment on planned admissions, but problems have remained with intensive care and accident and emergency. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has made available 100 million to support further work and is keeping a close eye on the situation. He is determined to make further progress.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the economy. I take the opportunity to reassure him that I keep a very careful eye on ensuring that the House has sufficient opportunities to debate the priority No. 1 concern for every person and every household in this country. They would expect Parliament to scrutinise Government action and debate what is happening with the economy. We will have opportunities to debate it on the Banking Bill; earlier this week we heard an oral statement on the car industry; and the week before that we heard an oral statement on the banking industry. I undertake that, as far as we possibly can, we will make sure that there is an opportunity for the House to hear statements and to scrutinise and debate important economic issues every week. Next week, there will be a debate in Opposition time on education and skills, which is important and relates to the recession, and there will be a further Opposition day debate the following week. We can all play our part in ensuring that the House has an opportunity to debate these important issues.
	Before I deal with the hon. Gentleman's second point, let me say that I think that he and all hon. Members should focus on how we can help constituents, who may face the dreadful prospect of their homes being repossessed, to obtain the assistance that is being provided, and how, when businesses in our constituencies are struggling, weas their Members of Parliamentcan secure the information that will help them, too, to obtain the extra assistance that is available. Information on the Government's website provides help for people and for businesses. I urge all hon. Members to download it, to take it to their advice surgeries, and to send it to their local chambers of commerce and citizens advice bureaux. Although there have been a number of focused initiatives, we must ensure that we serve as agents to obtain help for people who need it.
	I have always believed that if people are in trouble and if people are struggling, it is the job of Government to step up and help them. That is why we have taken the action that we have taken. We expect people to respond and, if they think there are other things that we can do, to make suggestions, as did representatives of Southwark chamber of commerce when I met them last Friday. We expect people to contribute, to present proposals and suggestions, and to say if they think that we are not doing things right.
	As for the hon. Gentleman, I know that just as in my heart of hearts I believe that the Government should help people if they are struggling, in his heart of hearts he does not believe that. He believes that there is no role for Government in this respect. His fundamental critique is that the Government are taking action when he thinks that they should not take action. In his book Saturn's Children , he said that there should be cuts in housing subsidies, cuts in employment and training, and cuts in police services. He also said that the state should withdraw from education altogether.
	The reality is that whereas we believe that the Government have responsibilities to people when they are struggling, the hon. Gentleman's ideology is to do nothingand, after all, he is a pivot of the Conservative party.

Joan Ryan: My right hon. and learned Friend may well be aware that the train operating company First Capital Connect, which made more than 48 million in profits in the first half of last year, has said that it will cut ticket office opening hours by 800 hours. That will affect 28 constituencies across the south-east. It will reduce customer services, passengers will feel less safe, and it will cost jobs. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to make representations to the Secretary of State for Transport and his Ministers and to give us time for a debate on the Floor of the House, because the proposal affects so many Members of Parliament and their constituents. It represents very poor value for money from First Capital Connect, and is, in my view, completely unacceptable.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend is right to raise this matter. Even if First Capital Connect is a private company, it is operating within a public service framework, and transport is an important public service. This is a matter for the regulators as well as for Ministers, but I shall ensure that it is brought to the attention of the Secretary of State for Transport.

David Heath: Another week is to pass without a debate on the economy in Government time. It is no good the Leader of the House asking the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives to use their Opposition days for a debate that ought to be held in Government time.
	We have called a debate on public spending because there seems to be a complete separation between the Prime Minister's mindset and reality. He keeps telling us that he is providing public money to fight the recession, but, as we heard earlier in Question Time, the reality is that all around the country colleges are being told that their anticipated capital spend simply will not happen. Will the Leader of the House encourage the Prime Minister actually to attend next Monday's debate in order actually to hear what is really happening? He seems to believe that he is the Mikado, and that because he has ordered something to be done, it has been done. It has not.
	While we are talking about the economy, can we deal with some of those who can least afford the difficulties at the moment: people who live in council homes? They are being saddled with enormous rent increases in many boroughs and council areas this year, simply because the Treasury has withdrawn 200 million from the council rent account, which means that rents are going up by anything up to 2,000 a year. Is that fair to some of the poorest people in this country?
	Can we have a debate, or at least a statement, on the worsening situation in Sri Lanka?
	Next week, finallyif it is not delayed againwe will have the Political Parties and Elections Bill. Has there been any progress in establishing the one-stop shop for the registration of Members' interests to avoid the confusion that there is at the moment? The House asked for that to be done. What is happening about it?
	Lastly, last Tuesday we had a statement from the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. It was eagerly anticipated because the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was speaking from the Conservative Front Bench. He spoke; he roared; he did not ask any questions. But had he asked any questions, there would not have been a Secretary of State on the Treasury Bench to respond. We had a report from the Business and Enterprise Committee, dated 25 November, that made a recommendation in that respect. The Government have not responded within the two-month period. Why not? When will they do so? When will the issue be moved to the Procedure Committee for a new Standing Order to deal with what is clearly a constitutional anomaly and what some would say is a constitutional enormity?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman started by saying that I had simply asked for the Opposition to bring forward debates on the economy. That is to misconstrue what I said. I want to make sure that, every week, there are debates and opportunities to scrutinise the Government's work. There is a rapid pace of change in the economy and, as it has been ever since Dick Whittington's day, the City of London is an important financial services centre. Therefore, a global financial services crisis inevitably affects the City. We are an outward-facing, trading nation and a global recession affects our economy in particular. We want to make sure that the House is able to focus on the rapid change that is happening internationally and how it is affecting our economy and can call the Government to account for the actions we are taking.
	The mindset of the Government and of the Prime Minister is to make absolutely sure that we are looking at what is happening and ahead to what will happen and taking the necessary action. The hon. Gentleman will understand that these measures take time to work through. We can work out the detail and announce them, but it takes time for them to work through and for their effect to be seen on the economy. That is why we can all help in our constituencies by making sure that businesses and families get the help they need.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about council rents. There will be an opportunity to debate that next Wednesday 4 February during debates on the local government finance reports. Last week, he asked for those to be separate debates and to be voted on separately. I can tell him that that will be the case.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about Sri Lanka, an issue of real and growing concern. I have spoken to Foreign Office Ministers, as I know the House will want an opportunity as soon as possible either to have an oral statement or a debate. The issue has been raised at Prime Minister's Question Time, but hon. Members want to take it further and I will certainly look for an opportunity so to do, possibly in a topical debate.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the registration of Members' interests and the question of dual reporting. The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons has done a great of work on this. He tells me that the Select Committee is due to report on Monday and that there will be an opportunity to sort out dual reporting and have a single system of reporting, which will be brought on a motion on business on Monday 9 February.

Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that, not long after the deputy leadership election, when she assumed her role, I asked her, and the Prime Minister at a later date, for a statement about getting rid of Members of Parliament's outside interests where they serve more than one masterdirectorships, consultancies and the rest? She said that she was looking at the matter and had prepared some material on the subject. Is she aware that since that time, members of the shadow Cabinetnot content with 4 million of Short moneyhave also been making money on the side? More than half the shadow Cabinet have directorships and consultancies and it is time that we put a stop to it. Members of Parliament cannot serve more than one master. Can we start this clean-up now?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend raises a very serious point. If Members are acting as barristers and in court in addition to their work in the House, their constituents sometimes ask, How do you have time to do it all? But there is a different point when income is being received by Members that is not related to their duties on behalf of their constituents. The difficulty is that the public say, If you are receiving money, what are you selling? What is happening? Why are you taking money? What is the person buying your services getting for those services? We must make sure that there is public confidence in this House, that the public know that we are in here to do our job for our constituents and that we do that in the public interest, and not to line our own pockets. My hon. Friend has raised an important issue and we will have to return to it.

Nicholas Soames: Will the Leader of the House-person [ Laughter ]grant a debate in Government time to allow Ministers to ponder, during this Government-created debt bust and pause in house building, and to give further consideration to their frequent assertions that large housing developments will not take place unless there is a suitable social infrastructure in place to support them, quite outside the normal section 106 agreements? Will the Leader of the House ask her colleagues to look further at this because it results in necessary housing going ahead without the proper infrastructure to support it, to the great disadvantage of all our constituents?

Harriet Harman: There will be an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to raise the issue in next Wednesday's debate on local government finance. I am sure that he will be able to make further points there. We must make sure that wherever there are housing developments, there is suitable infrastructurewhether roads, schools or health servicesand that the planning system takes that into account. We are very much in favour of more housing being built as there is a need in this country, but it must be accompanied by the proper infrastructure. We certainly want to support the construction industry by bringing forward capital projects. Quite the opposite effect would occur if, at a time when the housing market is struggling, public sector capital infrastructure projects were delayed, so we will attempt to bring those forward.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to a Government-created recession. He will know that there is a slowing of growth in China. Was that caused by this Government? He knows that there is a recession in America, France, Germany, Canada and Spain. If he simply talks about a Government-created recession, he will reinforce in everyone's mind one of two things: either that the Opposition do not really know what is going on, or that they do know what is going on, but are more determined to make party-political points than to contribute to working together to help the country through this very difficult time.

Fiona Mactaggart: Has my right hon. and learned Friend had a chance to see the report issued at 11 o'clock today on the conduct of the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway)? Does she agree that his conduct since almost the beginning of this century has brought this House into disrepute, and will we have an opportunity to debate his conduct next week?

Harriet Harman: The report has been published this morning by the Standards and Privileges Committee, and it is entitled: Mr. Derek Conway MP: Third Report of Session 2008-09. I have not had a chance to study it in detail, but the Committee had already found that this Member had wrongly taken 13,000 out of public funds, and this report concludes that a further sum of 4,000 appears also to have been taken. The House must have a chance to consider this: we should all have time to read the report, and then the House will probably swiftly need an opportunity to debate it. The question the public will ask themselves is: quite how much money can somebody wrongly take out of the public purse while still continuing to hold their job as a Member of Parliament?

Julia Goldsworthy: The Leader of the House has spoken of the responsibility of MPs to ensure that their constituents are made aware of the Government's announcements on the actions they are taking to combat the economic downturn. My constituents continue to be bewildered by the announcements that are made, and by the lack of relation they bear to their experiences on the ground. In particular, businesses are telling me that they are still struggling to get the banks to lend to them, and councils that are participating in the mortgage rescue pilot, such as Brent, are telling me that they still do not have details of the scheme they are supposed to be piloting. May we have a debate in Government time about not only the measures the Government are taking, but about the impact those measures are having on the ground, because I think there is a very big gap?

Harriet Harman: I will look for an opportunity to do that. As I have said, it takes time for people to understand the help that is available to them. On behalf of the hon. Lady's constituentsbusinesses big and small, and families who might seek her helpI ask her to go on to the Government website and print off Real help now: for people and businesses, which explains where to find help with homes, jobs and finances. That will be kept up to date. I acknowledge that there have been a number of initiatives; that is because we have needed to take focused measures, rather than just spread public money at large. That has meant that there is a level of complexity in the measures, but it is important that they are made clear and simpleand I commend the civil servants who have worked on the document to which I referred. I agree that we need to look for an opportunity for a debate but, in the meantime, the hon. Lady, like all hon. Members, can help her constituents.

Gordon Banks: To follow on from some earlier questions, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in 2007 first-time home buyers generated in excess of 2 billion in high street and service-sector sales, but that the sum now being generated is a fraction of that? Being mindful that the business announced for next week focuses on building and public spending, will she agree to have a debate in Government time specifically on the perilous state of the house building market?

Harriet Harman: There will be an opportunity to consider these issues when the Banking Bill returns to the Commons. My hon. Friend makes the important point about ensuring that money flows back into the housing market very well.

Greg Knight: Can the Leader of the House tell us when she expects to convene the next meeting of the Modernisation Committee? [Hon. Members: Never.] If, as I suspect, that is not imminent, may we have a debate about the desirability of merging the Modernisation Committee with the Procedure Committee? That would enable one Select Committee of the House to look at modernisation and procedure in a co-ordinated way. If we cannot have a debate, can we have some action on this?

Harriet Harman: A lot of the work to modernise the House of Commons has come not only from the Modernisation Committee, but from the Procedure Committee that the right hon. Gentleman so ably chairs. I say to any right hon. and hon. Members who might be worried that the process of reform and improvement of the House of Commons has ground to halt that it absolutely has not, because the right hon. Gentleman is taking that forward through his Committee. The Modernisation Committee membership needs to be changed following the elevation of my former Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), to his current position as my excellent deputy, but I assure Members that the work of modernisation is proceeding.

Keith Vaz: May I first declare my interest by stating that I suffer from type 2 diabetes? The Leader of the House will know that on Tuesday the Government's health profile for England was published, which showed commendable progress in a number of areas, but an alarming rise in diabetes. The rate among adult males is now 5.6 per cent. and for adult females it stands at 4.2 per cent. She also knows that we spend 1 million an hour on treating diabetes-related illnesses and that it is the fifth biggest cause of deaths globally. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that we deal with this alarming rise by providing members of the public with the opportunity of being tested? Will she arrange for a statement to be made on this matter as soon as possible?

Harriet Harman: I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he raise this matter in oral questions to Health Ministers on 10 February. Perhaps I can also take this opportunity to congratulate him on the work he does, not only in raising the issue of diabetes in the House, but in his charitable work to make sure there is public awareness of it. This is a public health issue; better public health can lead to postponing, or preventing, the onset of diabetes. It is important that people get screening for early diagnosis and effective treatment. It is my understanding that my right hon. Friend discovered that he had diabetes when he was helping to promote screening in his own constituency and offered to take a blood test. I congratulate him on his work, and I say to him that the Government will back it up.

Philip Davies: May we have a debate on the unelected and unaccountable role of regional government in this country? Bradford council has been told that, on top of the 50,000 homes it is expected to have built in the next few years, which is already against its wishes and the wishes of local residents, it might be hit with a further increase in the number of houses it is expected to have built. My constituents are sick to the back teeth of every scrap of green space being built on, which has been imposed on them by regional government, which is both unelected and unaccountable. May we have a debate about this, as it is of great concern to many constituents?

Harriet Harman: I am sure that in the hon. Gentleman's region there is a recognition that there need to be more homes and that there is a need for housing development, but that it must be in the right place and in the right areas with proper infrastructure. It is precisely for the reasons he mentioned that we are setting up regional committees so there can be regional scrutiny of the regional development agencies and the work of the Homes and Communities Agency at a regional level. I hope that soononce the Committee of Selection has done its workwe will be able to proceed with those regional committees.

Dari Taylor: Wind farms are becoming increasingly central to the delivery of renewable energy. However, there is no factual knowledge that we can count on that defines the efficiency of the source of energy and there are no guidelines about the location of these wind farms. At present, Stockton and Sedgefield are facing planning requests for more than 90 turbines. This is, of course, a problem that the local authority is attempting to handle. If it turns down these requests, it will then have to face costly appeals. That is not fair and it should not be the responsibility of local authorities to handle this. Will my right hon. and learned Friend make representations on behalf of the many of us who live in areas that are facing planning blight from turbines, which are springing up everywhere in our rural areas?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and that is why we introduced the Planning Act 2008, which will involve bringing forward a national policy statement on energy. That will include the framework within which renewable energy projects can take place, under which once proposals are made they can be swiftly consulted on and either taken forward or dropped.

Patrick Cormack: May I ask the Leader of the House to provide an opportunity to debate freedom of speech and political demonstration? She did not answer the point on Parliament square raised by the shadow Leader of the House. Although it is important that people should be free to demonstrate outside Parliament peacefully and to lobby Parliament, it is quite wrong that a squalid encampment should permanently disfigure the centre of our great capital city. Can we please deal with this expeditiously?

Harriet Harman: This is a matter of concern. Obviously, as the hon. Gentleman says, it is a question of the balance between freedom of speech and the right to demonstrate. This matter involves the City of Westminster police, the Mayor of London and the House authorities, and it is being considered under the general heading of constitutional renewal by the Secretary of State for Justice. I shall draw his attention to the comments made by the hon. Gentleman and the shadow Leader of the House.

Lindsay Hoyle: During this worldwide economic downturn, none are suffering more than people who have savings. Can we have a debate to see how we can protect, and ensure there is a guaranteed minimum income for, pensioners and people who save? That would be a way forward and it would give them hope.

Harriet Harman: There is a great deal of concern about this, not least among savers. Many savers are retired, and that is why we have sought to ensure that additional financial support is provided to savers. There will be an opportunity to return to these issues during the remaining stages of the Banking Bill.

Angus MacNeil: May I, too, push the Government for a debate on the economy in these times of recession and credit crunch? It should focus particularly on those who are stopping money reaching the real economy, such as irresponsible bankers, and on the crass and arrogant actions of Labour in Scotland, who, helped by the feeble Lib Dems, yesterday blocked 1.8 billion of new money. This would have been new money for councils, for health, for the vulnerable and for the disabled, and it would have provided support for 5,000 construction jobs. Reckless Labour is now

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not get up and read out a speech. He should ask a question about the business for next weekit should be about the business of this House, not the devolved Parliament of Scotland. Perhaps the Leader of the House should try to answer, and then we can move on.

Harriet Harman: I know that many Members of the Scottish Parliament were concerned about the lack of investment in apprenticeships and training, and that many Labour MSPs voted against the budget on that basis. However, this is, as you say, Mr. Speaker, not a matter for this House.

Andrew Slaughter: Members of all parties met the director-general of the BBC earlier this week and expressed considerable anger over its stance on the refusal to broadcast the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal on Gaza. That anger is shared by my constituents, many of whom are BBC employees, yet senior management seem determined to ride it out. So can we have a debate on the Floor of the House on this issue, which is wrecking the BBC's reputation at home and abroad?

Harriet Harman: No one can be in any doubt about the intensely high level of concern in this House about the humanitarian plight of people in Gazathat came out in the debate that we had in the past fortnight. Everyone wants to see not only an increase in the levels of Government humanitarian aid, which the Secretary of State for International Development has raised, but a recognition that the voluntary contribution is essential for humanitarian exercises, in addition to Government international pressure on the Israelis to make sure that that humanitarian aid gets through. Obviously, there has been nationwide dismay about this situation but, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, we need to step backwe should not step over the linefrom telling the BBC, which is independent, how it should make its editorial decisions. I see from the papers that it is reviewing the complaints that it has received about this issue, a Westminster Hall debate has taken place on which. A statement will be made just after business questions by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, so provided digital is in the question, there might be an opportunity to ask him for an answer too.

Alistair Burt: I listened to the earlier exchanges about the decision of the ill-fated Learning and Skills Council to suspend its capital funding programme. May I add my voice to concerns about this matter, not least on behalf of Sharnbrook upper school and community college, which found that many months of negotiations with the Department for Children, Schools and Families, its local authority and the LSC had been undermined by that decision and that there was a consequent negative impact on its pupils? Was the Leader of the House disappointed that information on the matter came not from a statement from a Minister but through contact with Members of Parliament? Is she very disappointed that, again, this matter is not being debated by the Government in their time, but has to be brought up by the Opposition in order to pin the Government down about such an important capital freeze?

Harriet Harman: I do not think we need any lessons from the official Opposition on capital spending. We have said that we are determined to bring forward capital spending on our infrastructure across the board, so that, as well as providing real help for people now, we provide real hope for the future. The hon. Gentleman's party has suggested cutting capital spending, so I suggest he address his questions to his own Front-Bench team, rather than to me.

Clive Efford: May I add my appeal to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Slaughter), because there is widespread concern, including among my constituents, about the BBC's decision not to show the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal on Gaza? People up and down the country are licence fee payers and, although I appreciate that the Government cannot tell the BBC what it should be doing, Back-Bench Members across this House want to express their views and would welcome an opportunity to do so on the Floor of the House.

Harriet Harman: I take the point that hon. Members are saying that even if the Government cannot take a position, they feel free, on behalf of their constituents, to do so and therefore I should look to provide an opportunity to discuss the issue, possibly through a topical debate.

Nicholas Winterton: Is the Leader of the House aware that there is a Procedure Committee report, which was accepted by the Government, that would enable them to take action immediately on the eyesore and noise nuisance that desecrates Parliament square?
	Will the Leader of the House find Government time for a debate on Zimbabwe? I press this point week after week; my commitment to that country is 100 per cent. Horrors as great, if not greater, than those occurring in Gaza are taking place there dailystarvation and cholera are killing thousands of people. May we have a debate in this Chamber to reflect our horror and to urge action?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman has raised this matter previously. Since it was raised by him and other hon. Members, I have spoken to my colleagues in the Foreign Office and I will seek an opportunity to debate Africa, in particular the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Darfur and Zimbabwe; I know that these are really important issues and I will look for an early opportunity.

Julie Morgan: May I, too, echo the concerns about the BBC's decision on Gaza?
	Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Legal Services Commission is planning to move the processing of legal aid from its office in Wales, at a time when Welsh law is diverging from English law because of the developments resulting from the Government of Wales Acts, with the loss of 40 jobs? Can she suggest any parliamentary opportunities for me to raise this very important issue further?

Harriet Harman: I suggest that my hon. Friend, who is a champion for jobs in her constituency, should look for an opportunity to raise this matter in Justice questions next Tuesday. I understand that she could also seek a meeting with Lord Bach, who is the Minister responsible for legal services. I think everybody appreciates that these are important jobs for her constituency.

Paul Burstow: The latest figures show that in the year to come council tenants in the London borough of Sutton will be paying 10.5 million of their rent to the Treasury, which, in effect, means that council tenants in Sutton, Cheam and Worcester Park will be paying their April to August rents to the Treasury. May we have a debate in Government time with the title Treasury profiteering from hard-pressed tenants?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman's party has already chosen two topics for the Opposition day next Monday, but he will find an opportunity to raise these issues next Wednesday in the local government debate.

Mary Creagh: The Leader of the House will recall that she and I debated the need to change the law on cohabiting couples in Westminster Hall about two or three years ago. On 13 March, in the other place, Lord Lester will introduce a private Member's Bill to reform the law for cohabiting couples. Following a two-year study by the Law Commission that reported in 2007 and the fact that the law has been changed in Scotland, do we not now need an urgent debate on the Floor of this House to see how we can change the law to protect the 2 million couples who are living together, and the 1.25 million children who are living with these parents and who are completely unprotected in the event of a breakdown of a relationship?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have just seen research that shows that after marriage breakdown the woman is likely to be around 25 per cent. worse off, and she usually looks after the children, so that has a bad impact on them. Men are likely to be some 25 per cent. better off, and that is why I strongly commend the proposals in the Welfare Reform Bill to ensure that fathers do not stop paying for their children when a relationship breaks down. My hon. Friend has been a champion, reminding everybody that although it is often unfair on children and women after marriage break-up, it is often even more unfair when cohabiting couples break up. This issue is under consideration by the Secretary of State for Justice and I suggest that she reminds him to make progress on that in Justice questions on Tuesday.

Michael Jack: In better economic times, the Government set considerable store by praying in aid support by the International Monetary Fund for their economic policies. Yesterday, the same body issued a damning report on the state of the British economy. May I ask the Leader of the House for a statement by a Treasury Minister about the IMF's findings, as many companies rely on such forecasts to enable them to organise their business affairs? As she said earlier, the provision of timely and accurate information to business is essential in these difficult times.

Harriet Harman: In that case, the right hon. Gentleman can respond to my request to give timely and accurate information to his constituents.

Andrew MacKay: Will the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland make a statement next week on the proposal to compensate the families of terrorists? That is causing great distress in Northern Ireland and affecting the peace process. The sooner that the Secretary of State comes to the Dispatch Box and knocks that crazy idea on the head, the better for all concerned.

Harriet Harman: We all hope and expect Northern Ireland to have a successful future, and we also have to honour the memories of those who have suffered, including the 4,000 who lost their lives during the 40 years of the troubles. We have to learn the lesson that Northern Ireland cannot prosper in the future if it continues to live in the grip of that painful past. I thank Lord Eames and Mr. Bradley for their report. In 200 pages, they made 30 proposals, one of which is especially controversial and the Prime Minister spoke about it to the House yesterday. We have to find a way towards reconciliation without endless repeats of massive inquiries such as the Saville inquiry, useful though that may turn out to be when it finally concludes its work.

Oliver Letwin: Will the Leader of the House prevail on the Home Secretary for a debate on the management of the UK Border Agency? I wrote to the Home Office recently about my constituent Mr. Gary Allen, and the reply said that the agency could confirm that his application for indefinite leave to remain was still awaiting consideration. It went on to say that it was not able to give a precise date for that consideration. Mr. Allen began his application in 2002, so he has been waiting for six years. Does that indicate that something may be going wrong in that agency?

Harriet Harman: I think I have more immigration cases than any other Member, and I know that some casesif they are complicated or involve different items of information that have to be obtained from other countriescan take a very long time to be sorted out. However, the agency is much quicker than it was and I commend its work. I suggest that, instead of raising the issue in business questions, the right hon. Gentleman seek a meeting with the Minister responsible to try to get Mr. Allen's case sorted out.

Bernard Jenkin: On the matter of the demonstrations in Parliament square, I make the plea that we treat the individual demonstrators with respect and that we respect their views, which are sincerely held.
	Will the Leader of the House have a word with her Cabinet colleagues about how they answer written questions? I have been attempting to obtain data about the performance of the ambulance service in the two districts in my constituency. That information used to be given in parliamentary answers, but since the regionalisation of the ambulance service it has been denied to us. The  Colchester Gazette has been told that it can obtain the information through a request under the freedom of information legislation. Given that the Secretary of State for Health is constitutionally responsible for the conduct of the health service, should he not provide the information in parliamentary answers that a local newspaper could obtain on request?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman is right. We cannot have a situation in which freedom of information requests are answered but Members elected to hold Ministers to account do not get answers to their questions. That is the wrong way round. I know that every Minister wants questions to be dealt with properly, and if things are going wrong they need to be brought sharply to their attention. The Deputy Leader of the House is the clearing house for such concerns and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman meet him to talk about it.

John Bercow: May we please have a debate in Government time and on the Floor of the House about violence against women? The Equality and Human Rights Commission and the End Violence against Women Coalition will tomorrow publish a seminal report highlighting the fact that 3 million women suffer this terrible scourge every year in England and Wales, at an estimated cost to the country of 40,000 million, so is it not high time that this House debated its approach to some of the most vulnerable people in our society to whom we owe a particular duty of care?

Harriet Harman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. The British crime survey showed a fall in the number of women reporting that they had suffered domestic violence, and that is a welcome trend, but it remains a massive problem. He mentions the report by the Equality and Human Rights CommissionI have had a chance to see it already. It shows that although statutory agencies are making progress with the support they providesuch as health authorities providing sexual assault referral centresthe map of gaps last year showed that one in three local authorities were providing no support services to women under threat of domestic violence. That has now fallen to one in four, so progress has been made, but it is still too few. Local authorities need to recognise that they must play their part in the battle against domestic violence. We should not wring our hands and say that nothing can be done, because action can be taken. There will be a debate on international women's day, so the hon. Gentleman will be able to raise the issue then.

Mark Lancaster: I add my voice to those on both sides of the House who are calling for a debate on Sri Lanka. While events there have been overshadowed in recent weeks by events in Gaza, the death toll continues to rise every day with many thousands of civilians caught between the warring factions. I urge the Leader of the House to do all she can to encourage the Government to bring that war to an end.

Harriet Harman: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's sentiments and I will bring them to the attention of the Foreign Secretary. He is already acting on this issue, but he will be grateful for the support and encouragement of hon. Members. I will also look for a chance to debate the situation.

Digital Britain

Andy Burnham: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the publication today of the interim Digital Britain report. Last October, together with the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, I announced that Lord Carter of Barnes would undertake a comprehensive review of Britain's digital, communication and creative sectors and make recommendations to place the country in a position to prosper in the digital age.
	Today, the Government are publishing Lord Carter's interim findings. His report starts from the recognition that those sectors are not only important in their own rightthey are worth more than 52 billion a year, with 2 million to 3 million people directly employed by thembut fundamental to the way all businesses operate and how we all live our lives.
	Capable communications systems can help British businesses to become more efficient and productive, offering the potential to reduce travel. High-quality information and entertainment enhance our democracy and our quality of life and define our culture. In short, building a digital Britain is about securing a competitive, low-carbon, productive and creative economy in the next five to 10 years.
	It is worth reminding the House of Britain's traditional strength in these industries. The worldwide web was invented by British ingenuity. It was here that GSM was created and established as the global standard for first generation digital mobile communications. However, that strength is not just in distribution and systems. Our television, music, film, games, advertising and software industries are world-leading. The OECD estimates that the United Kingdom cultural and creative sector, at just under 6 per cent. of gross domestic product, is relatively more important than its equivalent in the United States, Canada, France and Australia. UNESCO considers the UK to be the world's biggest exporter of cultural goods, surpassing even the US.
	We cannot be complacent. The online age is rewriting the rules, changing the way that consumers access content and the old business models that have underpinned Britain's creative industries. The challenge now is how to build the networks and infrastructure that help businesses and consumers to get the most from the digital age and how to fund the quality content that has always been our hallmark.
	The Government's thinking has been shaped by a series of important reviews, including the Caio review on next generation broadband access; the work of the digital radio working group; the Byron review on children and new technology, which led to the establishment of the UK Council for Child Internet Safety; the Convergence Think Tank; the digital inclusion action plan; and the Creative Britain strategy.
	Digital Britain brings those strands of work together into a clear and comprehensive framework with five public policy ambitions at its heart: first, to upgrade and modernise our digital networkswired, wireless and broadcast; secondly, to secure a dynamic investment climate for British digital content, applications and services; thirdly, to secure a wide range of high-quality, UK-made public service content for UK citizens and consumers, underpinning a healthy democracy; fourthly, to ensure fair access for all and the ability for everyone to take part in the communications revolution; and fifthly, to develop the infrastructure, skills and take-up to enable widespread online delivery of public services.
	The interim report makes 22 recommendations to achieve those objectives and I will set out some of them for the House today. Britain must always be ready to benefit from the latest advances in technology, so we will establish a strategy group to assess measures to underpin existing market-led investment plans for next generation access networks. An umbrella body will also be set up to provide technical advice and support to local and community networks. To facilitate the move to next generation mobile services, we are specifying a wireless radio spectrum modernisation programme. In addition, the Government are committing to enabling digital audio broadcasting to be a primary distribution network for radio in the UK and will create a digital migration plan for radio. We will also consider how the digital TV switchover help scheme can contribute towards wider inclusion in digital services.
	We will only maintain our creative strength if we find new ways of paying for and sustaining creative content in the online age. We will therefore explore the potential for a new rights agency to be established and, following a consultation on how to tackle unlawful file sharing, we propose to legislate to require internet service providers to notify alleged significant infringers that their conduct is unlawful.
	Our third objectivehigh-quality, UK-made public service contentwill be achieved by sustaining public service broadcasting provision from the BBC and beyond. The report identifies newsat local, regional and national leveland children's programming as among the key priorities. The BBC as an enabling force is central to that objective. Strong and secure in its own future, it will work in partnership with others to deliver those objectives. We will also explore how we can establish a sustainable public service organisation that offers scale and reach alongside the BBC, building on the strength of Channel 4. We will consider options to ensure plurality of provision of news in the regions and the nations, and we are asking the Office of Fair Trading, together with Ofcom, to look at the local and regional media sector in the context of the media merger regime. We will consider the evolving relationship between independent producers and commissioners to ensure we have the appropriate rights holding arrangements for a multi-platform future.
	Our fourth objective of fairness and access is, of course, crucial to delivering the Government's policy of an inclusive society where new opportunities are available to all and nobody is left behind, so we are developing plans to move towards an historic universal service commitment for broadband and digital services to include options up to 2 megabits per second, building on the approach to postal services and telephones in centuries past. We will also ensure that public services online are designed for ease of use by the widest range of citizens.
	Lastly, to help people navigate this vast and changing world, the report makes recommendations to improve media literacy and, in particular, to give parents the information and tools necessary to protect children from harmful or inappropriate content.
	The Government have today set out an ambitious vision to ensure that Britain reaps the full economic and social benefits of the digital age. An intensive period of discussions with industry partners and others must now begin to turn the emerging conclusions into firm solutions. A final report will be presented to Parliament by the summer and I wish to thank Lord Carter for his work to date. In publishing the interim report today and making this statement to the House, we seek to invite members from both sides of the House to engage in the debate on the fundamental questions that will shape our country's economy and society in this century. I commend the statement to the House.

Jeremy Hunt: I thank the Secretary of State for 15 minutes' notice of his statement and a much more generous notice of the report, which we received in good time this morning. However, we were disappointed that yet again the contents were broadcast on the Today programme this morning, that they are in  The Daily Telegraph and  The Times, and that there was even a briefing at No. 10 at 8 o'clock this morning to which the industry, including broadcasters, was invited. I respectfully suggest to the Secretary of State that if he is serious about cross-party collaboration on these issues, he should respect the role of Parliament in this matter as in every other.
	We welcome the interest that the Government have shown in our digital economy. All parties in the House are united in the desire to maximise the competitive strengths of our creative economy and the Government have obviously committed considerable resources to putting together the report. However, most people will be disappointed with it. The digital economy is vital for Britain because of our natural strengths in creating digital content, but, when it comes to the delivery of that content, we are lagging badly. We come 21st out of 30 for broadband speed, while 40 per cent. of our households do not have broadband at all and connections fell last year. On next generation broadband, the report itself concedes that we are lagging behind France, Germany, the US and Japan.
	The statement and the report were a chance to put things right, but instead the Governmentwho have been the best customer for the management consultancy industry in the history of Britainhave promised no new action but a total of eight new reports. This week, a woman in California gave birth to eight babies. Perhaps in homage to her, the Government have announced eight new reports. Although the world was surprised and delighted with the arrival of the octuplets, we have all become wearily familiar with the Government's continual substitution of reports for action.
	The report does mention action. The most critical question of all, namely how to stimulate investment in next generation broadband access, is dealt with under action 1. What is action 1? It is to
	establish a Government-led strategy group.
	So the most important action is not an action at all but the establishment of a strategy group. A Conservative Government will make it a major objective to ensure that more than half the population has access to next generation networks within five years. Do the Government accept that as an objective? Will they deliver it?
	The report says that the Government will
	work with...operators...to remove barriers to the development of a...wholesale market in access to ducts.
	If BT, which owns the ducts, does not co-operate, will the Government force BT to open them to other suppliers, as the Conservatives have pledged?
	Can the Secretary of State tell us who is in overall chargeLord Carter, the Business Secretary or the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport? Without clear leadership, the chance of delivering on such huge commitments is minuscule. So may we have a categoric assurance that there is no turf war going on between the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and Ofcom that prevents the Government from showing the leadership that is so desperately needed?
	On universal service obligation for broadband, we welcome the long-delayed commitment to ensure that everyone has access. But who will pay for that? Expressing a sentiment is fine, but without a road map for delivery it is surely a totally empty promise. The Government say that the universal commitment should be for 2 megabits per second access. Given that the national average access speed is 3.6, is not the scale of the Government's ambitions pitifully low, in simply saying that they want to ensure that the whole population has access to half the current average speed by 2012? Is there not a real risk that these changes will be superseded by technological changes before they are implemented?
	On digital radio, the report says:
	We are making a clear statement
	that DAB should be
	a primary distribution network.
	So how will that be funded? How will the Government ensure that DAB becomes available in people's cars? How will they ensure that the signal is strengthened in rural areas? Without those details, this report amounts to no more than an empty gesture.
	On copyright protectionan incredibly important issueinstead of a solution there is a proposal to set up a new quango, with a new tax on internet users. Why do we need another agency when Ofcom is already equipped and able to do that job? And why should legitimate internet users have to pay for the copyright infringement of transgressors?
	The Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), recently enraged the music industry by comparing illegal downloading to stealing bars of soap from hotels. Can the Secretary of State reassure the House that for the Government theft is theft, whether online or offline?
	On peer-to-peer file sharing, the report talks about consulting on legislation. So can the Secretary of State tell the House how internet service providers are supposed to identify illegally shared files, given what happened in France, where many users simply reacted by encrypting their files when the French Government introduced similar measures?
	On the review of the terms of trade, can the Secretary of State give clarity on timings, given that while a review is taking place investment in independent production will be very hard to sustain?
	Finally, on internet content, I notice that the Secretary of State's idea for cinema-style ratings for websites is not in the report. Has it been sidelined, perhaps by voices in Government more realistic about the ability of Government to control the internet?
	In October the Secretary of State said:
	Now is the time to move from...think tank phase to...delivery phase.
	So where is the delivery on next generation access? Another consultation. Where is the delivery on copyright protection? Another quango. Where is the delivery on peer-to-peer file sharing? Another consultation. Where is the delivery on the crisis facing local newspapers? Another review. Where is the delivery on community radio? Another consultation. Where is the delivery on terms of trade? Just another report. No concrete action, only eight woolly reviews.
	A Conservative Government made telecoms deregulation happen. They made the satellite and cable revolution happen. Now it looks as though the country will have to wait for another Conservative Government to end the curse of endless reviews, reports and consultations and lay the foundations for a truly competitive digital Britain.

Andy Burnham: I listened closely to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I think he has fundamentally misunderstood the importance of the report published today, and of the action that the Government need to take, in partnership with others, to reach firm conclusions. He seems to think that the Government can simply impose a view and say, It must be like this; now everyone can get on and do it as we say. It has to be right to develop a strong public-private partnership in these complex areas, so that we get these decisions right and so that industry has confidence in them.
	The hon. Gentleman made a statement in the middle of his contribution, which was something like this: A Conservative Government will take action to ensure that more than half of the country has next generation access within five years. That is a major spending commitment. I hope he has permission for such a commitment from the shadow Chancellor. That is a major, open-ended, blank-cheque commitment, and he should think very carefully before he makes commitments of that kind.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the process and why there was comment in the newspapers. No Ministers appeared on the Today programme today. It is, by definition, an inclusive process and we have drawn a wide range of voices into this debate. For that reason, it would be impossible for the Government to control all comment made about the emerging conclusions, but I can assure him that this House is hearing the detail of the report for the first time.
	The hon. Gentleman says that most people will be disappointed with the report. I reject that entirely. If he were to ask the music industry or the film industry, he would discover that they see here a process that started with the Creative Britain document last year, whereby the Government are addressing directly the very serious concerns that they have raised, and are trying to come up with solutions that will work in the future, not simply saying that what is unlawful should be unlawful.
	We have to recognise that young people throughout the country are exploring and using music differently from how they did in the past. It is unrealistic to think that the clock can be turned back, which is what the hon. Gentleman seemed to be suggesting. We have to create sensible solutions that will have some chance of enduring in the online age. That will be done by ensuring that we capture the benefits of the internet and the freedoms with which people can explore new content, while finding ways of paying for it in the future. On that, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I are absolutely clear: we agree that legislating to cut people off is unlikely to win public confidence in and support for this important agenda. It is a more sophisticated approach, which the hon. Gentleman has today shown himself completely incapable of understanding.
	The hon. Gentleman asked who is in charge. Lord Carter is conducting a review, as a Minister in both Departmentsa converged Minister, looking at these issues of convergence, as the hon. Gentleman puts it. He is reporting to two Secretaries of State and ultimately the Government. I think this has been a process whereby different parts of the Government are working very closely together and producing a report that for the first time brings together infrastructure and content. That is a major step forward.
	The hon. Gentleman asks who will pay for broadband; that illustrates precisely why it is not as easy as sitting there and dictating. We will now enter a process with the operators of fixed and mobile networks to see how we can build out broadband services so that we work towards a universal service commitment. That will be the next phase of Lord Carter's work. I said he would report before the summer; that seems to me a pretty firm timetable and it is not the woolly, open-ended process that the hon. Gentleman seemed to claim we were operating.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about copyright, and why a new agency. I would simply say to him that these are complex issues and it is right to bring rights holders and ISPs together to work out solutions that will work for both.
	On the terms of trade, we need to be absolutely clear that the independent sector in this country has flourished in recent times. He said it was all down to a Conservative Government. Well actually, no. It was the Communications Act 2003 which put in place the conditions for a flourishing independent production sector in recent times. As with everything, all options need to be considered as part of this review, but we will not do anything that damages the strength of that sector, which now has some companies that really are global operators, delivering huge economic benefits for this country.
	Lastly, the hon. Gentleman raised the question of internet content. I said over the Christmas period that we needed to help parents to get better information about the content to which their children will be exposed when they use websites. The Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee reported on this matter last summer, and I say openly to the House that I am not sure how many parents know, for example, that YouTube's recommended minimum age is 13, meaning that people under 13 should not use it unsupervised. I do not believe that it is irresponsible to raise such issues. Parents clearly do not knowthey might be surprisedthat there is a recommended minimum age for using such sites with lots of user-generated content, and the fact that the hon. Gentleman simply brushes the notion aside demonstrates his complete misunderstanding of the fundamental importance of some of the issues raised in Digital Britain.
	We heard a disappointing and churlish response to a significant piece of work, and I would have expected better from the hon. Gentleman.

Several hon. Members: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I, too, wish to be as inclusive as possible, so I hope that hon. Members' contributions will be one supplementary question, and that there will be a succinct reply.

Don Foster: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for advance copies of his statement and the interim Digital Britain report from his apparently converged Minister. As the hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) said, the report makes interesting but disappointing reading.
	The Secretary of State will be aware that the UK has slipped in the global league table of digital adoption, skills and use. Other countries make the development of a digital knowledge economy the centrepiece of their economic development, and we should be doing that, but we are not. This morning, the Prime Minister said that the report set out the scale of his ambition, but he should have added that it offers few, if any, decisions. Where are those decisions?
	Our public service broadcasters, from the peerless BBC to the multi-award winning Channel 4, are the envy of the world, but they face significant problems. They need help and advice, and they need decisions to be made now. Last September, the Secretary of State said that we would have those decisions today. He stated that:
	early in the New Year, Ofcom can conclude its review and Government can announce decisions and the process to implement those decisions.
	What decisions has he made? He welcomes talks between the BBC and ITV, and between the BBC and Channel 4, and talks about the possible involvement of Channel 4 in BBC Worldwide, but he offers no decisions. Apparently, we must wait until the summerso much for urgency.
	Does the Secretary of State agree, at least, that there is now a window of opportunity for exciting thinking about using Worldwide? Does he agree that any links between Worldwide and other broadcasters, including Channel 4, must lead to added value for the BBC, as opposed to using Worldwide as a cash cow for others? Why has he not been ableas he should have beento rule out the top-slicing of money from the BBC? Why can we now not get on with making a return path part of the core requirement for digiboxes?
	As the hon. Member for South-West Surrey said, perhaps the biggest disappointment relates to the plans for rolling out universal high-speed broadband. The Government promised that they would bring forward capital investment to help us out of the recession. This is one of the key areas in which that could be done. If done properly, 600,000 new jobs could be created in this country, but what have we got? We have some vague commitment to a universal 2 megabits per second provision. As the hon. Gentleman said, average speeds are already 3.6 megabits per second, so why is there such little ambition and such a low target?
	Over the past few years, we have spent millions of pounds on the work of Ofcom, the Convergence Group, the Byron report, the Broadband Stakeholder Group, the Creative Britain group, the Caio review and much more. In return for all that work, we have today the announcement of a strategy group, an umbrella body, a delivery group, a rights agency, an exploratory review, a digital champion and an expert taskforce. Is this not further evidence of classic new Labourhigh on vision and spin, but short on substance?

Andy Burnham: I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman takes that approach. Let me deal with his central charge that this is disappointing, which echoes what the hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) said. What is disappointing about making a fairly historic commitment on universal broadband services? The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) might have just banked it, but that is a fairly major statement on the path towards a fully digital society. I wish he would not brush that away as though it were insignificant. It is significant that we say we want to move towards broadband for everyone, and it is a moment such as the development of telephone and postal services.
	Both hon. Gentlemen made international comparisons and suggested that we were being unduly cautious. Let me put on record something that contradicts what they said: France wants 512 kilobits per second and Finland wants 1 megabit per second. We are looking at options up to 2 megabits per second, so I hope they recognise that that represents greater ambition.
	The hon. Member for Bath said that decisions were promised on public service broadcasting. Let me tell him the decisions that the report makes clear. There will be public service broadcasting beyond the BBC. Have the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives made such a commitment? [Hon. Members: Yes!] Well, I would be happy to hear it again today.
	We also make clear the specific elements of public service provision beyond the BBC that are important, which is an important decision. We say that local, regional and national news are important. We say that we need quality programming for children, especially the over-10s. We say that we need production in all parts of the country. We are setting this down, and the hon. Gentleman is leaping towards institutional solutions, but that is the next phase, which will be dealt with in the final report. He seems to misread the process. We are publishing the interim report precisely so that there can be a debate about the solutions before they are finalised.
	The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that there was rich potential in using BBC Worldwide both to enhance our position in the global market and to generate resources that can go back into British programming that can then be sold throughout the world. Of course, this is about solutions that work for everyone, which is why there is complexity and we are taking our time to get things right.
	The hon. Gentleman asked why we did not rule out top-slicing, but because we are committed to plural provision beyond the BBC, until solutions are found that would certainly deliver such provision, top-slicing must remain in the mix as a possible option. Although the option remains on the table, it is not, as I have said many times, the solution for which I would instinctively reach first. I have said today that a strong and secure BBC is one that can form a partnership and play an enabling role, and that is my preferred route.
	Lord Carter signals a significant change of policy on the return path for digital boxes by saying that that should be an option under the help scheme. We will explore that in more detail over the coming weeks.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about capital investment in broadband, but that is a matter of public-private partnership, not simply the Government funding it all, which is what he seemed to be suggesting. We need to work intelligently with the communications sector and encourage the industry to work together to increase access to mobile and fixed networks. The Government will play a part in the debate in maximising the use of spectrum and ensuring that we have the right incentives for investment in this country. That is the intelligent approach, and I am sorry that the hon. Members for South-West Surrey and for Bath seem to misunderstand it.

David Blunkett: I thank my right hon. Friend for the statement and the interim report. He and I share a long-standing concern about the digital divide, in terms of availability, connectivity and internet literacy, which he has mentioned. Will he comment on how we might, through the report, strengthen our hand when it comes to the other dividethe divide that means that there are people who are not aware that there are dangers, as well as opportunities, and not aware of the protection that is needed, to which they can contribute? Will he today suggest that it is possible to strengthen the moderation role of providers and organisers of sites, because content appears on sites that would be totally unacceptable in print or traditional broadcast media?

Andy Burnham: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his considered intervention. I point him towards research that says that one of the things that stops people from becoming bigger users of online services is a fear of what is online. We need to think about that. That is precisely why the issue of improving literacy and labelling of content is very important. Sometimes, when such issues are raised, there are immediate claims of an attack on free speech, or of censorship. Nothing could be further from the truth. What is truemy right hon. Friend pointed to thisis that the old media world had standards that guided people, so that they knew how best to use services. He is right to point to the need for similar standards in the online age, so that we do not take away the benefits or the huge, rich sources of information available to people, but empower peopleparentsto make the right decisions about the content that they access.

John Whittingdale: I welcome the Government's intention to move ahead with promoting investment in next-generation access broadband, but does the Secretary of State recognise that faster download speeds will make it even easier for online piracy and illegal file-sharing to take place, and will pose an even greater threat to our music, games, television and film industries? He will be aware that so far, talks between the internet service providers and the creative industries have been remarkably unsuccessful. Will he confirm that one of the few commitments that he has announced today is that the Government will legislate on the issue, and will he say when that legislation will be introduced?

Andy Burnham: I thank the Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. He has raised an incredibly important point, of which I am very much aware. When I came to this role just over a year ago, I said that it was a priority for me to ensure that we no longer simply stood by when the music industry faced serious damage. We have changed our tone in the past 12 months, as I hope that he recognises. We have given considerable urgency to the consideration of those questions, not least as a result of the promptings of his Committee and others. It is because of the connection between the ability to download and the content that is being downloaded that the report brings those two questions together into the same consideration. Music has faced the challenge sooner because, obviously, it is easier to download music over less capable networks, but as capability increases, the threat to the film and TV industries grows greater. That is why we are urgently considering the matter.
	Today, we have proposed a commitment to legislate to ensure co-operation between the ISPs and the music industry. Obviously, I cannot prejudge the parliamentary timetable, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that once Lord Carter has finished his work, if the considered view of those whom he consults is that there should be legislation, we will move to legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.

Anne Snelgrove: My right hon. Friend will be aware of Swindon's historical railway village, and the fact that as it is a conservation area, people there cannot have satellite dishes or cable. How will he ensure fair access for my constituents, many of whom are on low incomes or are pensioners, given Virgin's virtual monopoly of supply via phone lines? How will he protect my constituents from high price increases once switchover happens?

Andy Burnham: I am very aware of the problem that my hon. Friend has raised, particularly in relation to Swindon railway village. Some of the measures that I have announced today will provide a long-term solution, because obviously, in the fullness of time, people may be able to access TV services through broadband, but in the short term that will not be possible. One of the issues emerging during the digital switchover programme is how we give people access to TV services where there are local restrictions to do with listing and the use of aerials and dishes. Her constituency has a thorny example of that kind of problem. I understand that the council is considering alternatives to cable for those residents, recognising the inflated prices that some may have to pay as a result of the options that they are given. Obviously, we hope that the council is able to offer those alternatives, and we will help, if we can, to ensure that the residents of Swindon railway village have a fair and affordable choice.

Peter Luff: It is perhaps inevitable that a document that is more of the quality of a Green Paper than of a White Paper raises more questions than it answersquestions, for example, about the ability of the regulator to cope with the additional work load at a time when he is also being asked to take on the regulation of mail services, and questions about the wisdom of responsibility for the issue being shared between two Departments, which I think gets in the way. The Business and Enterprise Committee, which I chair, is lucky enough to be able to summon Lord Carterthe converged Ministerand question him; the rest of the House will not have that opportunity. Will the Secretary of State today commit to using his best endeavours to secure a full day's debate, in Government time, on the very important questions that the document raises, so that we make sure that the House can thoughtfully make the maximum contribution to the process?

Andy Burnham: Let me deal with this, if I can, once and for all: this is an interim report. If I had come to the House today with Lord Carter's final report, I can quite imagine that the cry from the Opposition Benches would have been, These are fundamental questions for our society, democracy and economy, yet the Government have come along and imposed solutions straight away. I believe that the process that has been established is the right one. As I said at the end of my statement, our wish now is to engage Members from all parts of the House on these incredibly important considerations. The process follows that of the Darzi review, which I think most people would consider to have been successful in stimulating a debate about the future of the national health service. I am sure that the business managers and the Leader of the House will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said about a full day's debate, but he is absolutely right to say that the questions are crucial for the country and need to be debated by Members in this House. That is why I made the statement today.

Joan Humble: My right hon. Friend is well aware that what I know about modern information communication technology can be written on the back of a postage stamp, but the people I worry about are those who think that they know about what is on the internet. Does he share my concerns about those parents who believe that they know what their children are watching on the internet, and how they are engaging with other people through computers? What sort of information does he anticipate giving those parents, and when does he expect to come back to us with further description of the tools that he believes are necessary to protect children from harmful and inappropriate content?

Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend has raised a really important point; I think that the divide between me and my children on communications issues is bigger than it was between me and my parents. The issue is huge, and I do not believe that all parents fully understand the range of information or content that their children can easily access. To raise that question is not to raise questions about curtailing access or about censorship; it is simply being responsible, and it is right, in a decent society, to say that parents should be empowered to find their way through a complicated, fast-changing world.
	Although the watershed could never be used on the internet, it was nevertheless an utterly clear statement to parents about the kind of content that they could expect to find if they were to use services at a particular time. Opposition Front Benchers rubbished the suggestion, but I do not believe that parents know that there are recommended age limits for user-generated websites such as YouTube, or about the age limit of 13 to which I have referred. They should know, and they should judge whether it is safe for their child to use such websites or not. It is absolutely appropriate that the House should debate such issues, given that broadband and online services will be in every home in this country. It is not good enough simply to take the line that such things should not be considered, or that we are talking about gimmicks or grandstanding.

Michael Fabricant: The Secretary of State presented an interesting Green Paper, but does he understand that people will think that he is trying to run before he can walk? He says that we invented GSM, yet there are large swathes of this country that do not have 3G. He says that we invented the internet, yet large swathes of the country do not have internet at allbroadband, that is. Does he further understand that when people say that 8 megabits can be supplied, quite often because of contention rates it is about 1.8 megabits? What does he intend to do to improve the infrastructure and concentrate on that before this vision thing?

Andy Burnham: I respect the hon. Gentleman's background in the communications and media sectors, but perhaps he needs to be a little more careful in his language. He says that large swathes do not have access to broadband, but 99 per cent. of households can get some level of broadband, and six in 10 take it. He is right to say that although there is pretty wide coverage, the quality of broadband in certain areas may lead some people not to take it up. It may also be the content issues that I mentioned a moment ago that prevent people from taking it up. At 2 megabits per second, availability goes down to 93 per cent.
	It is important for us to get the facts on the table, and then to consider a plan with industry to give it the right incentives to build up those networks, so that we progress towards the universal service commitment. It is not right, as the hon. Gentleman will understand, for the Government to say at this time that that must be a matter for public spending. I do not believe the hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) was right to say that a Conservative Government would pay for next generation access to 50 per cent of the country. These are more complicated issues that we need to work through with industry. Crucially, incentives to invest have to be made right, and the Government can help to do that through regulation and change to spectrum availability.

Alun Michael: I welcome my right hon. Friend's wide ranging statement and the leadership that has been provided on these issues by Lord Carter. May I encourage them to extend convergence beyond the two Departments right across Government? Does my right hon. Friend agree that given the nature of the internet, it is essential that we make the UK the safest place to do business online, and that that is equally important for companies and for individuals? Does he further agree that the speed and reach of the internet is such that legislation and bureaucracy are unlikely to keep pace, and that we therefore need a fast and flexible partnership approach involving industry, the Government and the House in cutting internet-related crime and other activity that undermines people's confidence in using the internet in the way that it has such great potential to be used?

Andy Burnham: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend's remarks. At all times, our approach needs to be characterised by a desire to capture and preserve the huge benefits of the online worldthe ability to explore information and access contentand by working towards agreed rules that are in the public interest. That is not about curtailing freedom or introducing heavy regulation. We need to find our way though to develop agreed systems, with industry and Government working together, as my right hon. Friend has suggested. If those are to stick, a degree of international consensus is neededsuch is the nature of the online space. Over the course of this year, the Government intend to build a better dialogue with international partners to see whether we can use some of the emerging approaches to make Britain a safe place to do business, as he says, and see whether those can be applied more generally to set new standards for the new age.

John Redwood: Are the Government at all worried about the way in which extreme compression is leading to bad quality of both analogue and digital broadcasts on many radio stations? When, for example, will cricket lovers be able to hear uninterrupted BBC cricket commentary on digital in good quality?

Andy Burnham: They can.  [ Interruption. ] BBC 5 Live Sports Extra is broadcasting most international cricket on a fairly uninterrupted basis, although I take the comments of the shadow Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson). If there are particular problems receiving the digital signal in his area, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) may wish to write to me. We are in a period when we are broadcasting on both the analogue signal and digital. When we reach the point of switchover, we will be able to increase the strength of the digital signal, which should lead to better quality signals in all parts of the country. I acknowledge that I am not an expert on extreme compression, but if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me, I will provide a fuller reply.

Helen Southworth: I thank my right hon. Friend for the statement, with the economic benefits that those developments will bring to my constituents in the north-west region, considering our strengths in the creative industries, and the opportunities that will come to us with Media City at Salford. I draw his attention to the universal service commitment. He is aware of Alderman Bolton school in my constituency, a primary school which is running an innovative project with the children that involves giving them laptop computers and teaching them how to access the internet, how to learn using the internet and how to be safe using the internet. The school serves a disadvantaged community, and many of the children do not have access to the internet at home. Because very few of them have access to broadband at home, they cannot share what they are learning with their parents and the rest of their family, and they cannot do their homework using the knowledge that they have gained at school. How will my right hon. Friend make sure that the digital divide does not affect such children, that the statement will help them and that they will have access to broadband?

Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend knows that I know her constituency well, as it neighbours my own. The points that she has raised are incredibly important. I am proud of many things that the Government have done, but perhaps proudest of the way in which our primary schools have undergone a huge change in the past 10 years in their use of technology and all the rich potential that that offers to change the learning experience for young people. If I understand her correctly, she is saying that we need to enhance further what primary schools are able to do, but ensure that children can go home and continue their learning, working with their parents. The vision that we have put forward today is precisely about extending the availability of the highest quality broadband services and driving the take-up of those services, particularly among the most vulnerable people in our society. That is exactly the vision, and we look forward to working with her to make sure that we realise it.

Richard Ottaway: May I raise the impact that the Secretary of State's report will have on ITV? He will be aware of Ofcom's analysis showing that as a result of the digital age, regional news on ITV will be unsustainable by 2011, so does he agree that even with the sharing of facilities with the BBC, alternative arrangements will have to be made from 2011 onwards, if there is to be plurality in regional news?

Andy Burnham: I recognise that these are delicate questions. I also recognise the importance of regional news beyond the BBC. I have spoken many times about that since taking on my present job. I proposed last year that we should look at co-operation in the regions, using BBC facilities, to see whether that could help to sustain a regional news service beyond the BBC. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that such a service at that level is very important for democracy at a local level. We have made good progress, and ITV and BBC have made considerable strides in seeing how the relationship can work and beginning to work out the practical issues that will come from sharing studio space and outside broadcast technology. Those discussions have reached an advanced stage, as the report indicates, and I hope that they will be concluded soon. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see in that the germ of an idea that can be taken further, so that the BBC can become an enabling force to sustain a healthy media industry beyond the BBC.

Gordon Banks: From both the questions and the answers, I am sure that my right hon. Friend agrees that although the digital age provides enormous opportunities, it poses a range of problems. Can he reassure me, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on publishing, that the publishing industry, which earns billions of pounds a year for the UK economy, is adequately protected in terms of international property rights in the digital age, so that the industry can protect the writers of today and tomorrow and continue to be a cash earner for the UK economy?

Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Part of the challenge is to ensure that the benefits of content do not accrue only to those who distribute it. The issue is about ensuring that at every stage of the processdistribution and, crucially, creationthere are fair rewards for those who produce the things that people want to read, watch and enjoy around the world. Clearly, we are not in that position today, but we need to work towards it.
	I did not mention publishing in my statement, but perhaps I should have done so. Publishing is one of the oldest creative industries in this country, and I would go so far as to say that our strength in literature is unparalleled. We have to work out new funding models to sustain the highest-quality content in the new age, and I am confident that we can do so. There is a willingness to engage in this discussion, both on the internet service providers' side and the rights holders' side, and the rights agency is the body that will bring those sides together to make solutions that work and that can stick. However, we have some way to go.
	Lastly, I say to my hon. Friend that the issue is about finding solutions that go with the grain of how people use the internet today. The world has changed since people paid for every single, LP or book that they bought, and we need to find new ways of paying for content that are in keeping with the new ways in which people are accessing it.

Philip Davies: I welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to plurality in public service broadcasting. Does he accept that the issue is that the BBC has a never-ending, guaranteed increase in funding year on year, while commercial broadcasters are seeing their income go down year on year? Does he agree that the only sustainable solution to the problemparticularly given that the BBC still seems to think it worth paying Jonathan Ross 6 million a yearis to top-slice the licence fee, take it from the BBC and give it to commercial broadcasters in return for a commitment to public service broadcasting content?

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman has put forward his view. I think that at times people in other countries would be surprised to hear some of the comments made about the BBC. At the end of the day, it is an outstanding and fine institution that provides brilliant broadcasting for this country. One of the best recent illustrations of that was the coverage of the Beijing Olympics and Paralympics, which showed the BBC at its best.
	Of course, we have to consider how the BBC should relate to the fast-changing media world; the hon. Gentleman is not wrong to raise that question, because it is important. I start from the premise that we should not only maintain a strong and secure BBC, doing the great things that it does, but look at how it can help to sustain a wider and healthy media infrastructure. It could work to support local media, including local newspaperswe increasingly need to debate that issue, and the important changes that it involves, in the House. The BBC could help to sustain content from the regions and beyond the BBC and high-quality content on the international stage. We need to have that debate, but I urge the hon. Gentleman not to reach straight for punitive solutions that are seen to undermine or attack the BBC. The BBC is a fundamental strength of this country.

Holocaust Memorial Day

Topical debate

Sadiq Khan: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of Holocaust Memorial Day.
	I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House for selecting this subject for debate. I note that the Deputy Leader of the House is on the Front Bench for the opening of this debate.
	Holocaust memorial day is a theme that unites right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I welcome that. Last year's topical debate on this issue was probably the most well attended that we have had. In debates such as today's our clear message is one of shared resolve around the most important issues. I am keen to allow as many contributions as possible, so I will keep my remarks as brief as I canand briefer than I would have liked. That shared resolve must be about not just learning more about the holocaust, genocides and other atrocities, but learning from them. I am sure that hon. Members will join me in committing afresh to ensure that the lessons at the heart of Holocaust memorial day are remembered and applied.

Andrew Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because he has made an important point, particularly in the wake of the recent troubles in Gaza and southern Israel. There has been a real upsurge in anti-Semitic attacks in my constituency and borough, and more widely. The Community Security Trust recorded more than 150 attacks, the highest number since it started keeping details. That is a very serious matter. Does my hon. Friend think that those responsible for those attacks could learn a lot if they studied what had happened during the holocaust?

Sadiq Khan: I am grateful for that intervention; my hon. Friend deserves a huge tribute for the progress made in the past few years in commemorating Holocaust memorial day and learning the lessons of the past. When we speak to holocaust survivors, or the families of those who died in the holocaust, about the criminal damage of synagogues and the desecration of graves in cemeteries, we find that they have a sense of dj vu. It renders them speechless. Those who research the history of the holocaust see the dehumanisation and hatred that begins at one end of the spectrum and leads ultimately to the killing of 6 million people.

David Winnick: I totally agree with the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). Holocaust memorial day is for remembering all the victims of mass murder and killings, and we remember those killed in Gaza, including the young children. Does the Minister not deplore the fact that the Vatican has brought back into the fold a British-born bishop who is a holocaust denier and obviously pro-Nazi? Although I accept that the Vatican has totally dissociated itself from his remarks, is it not unfortunate that that bishop is allowed to be so senior in the Catholic clergy, given that he simply denies that the gas chambers existed?

Sadiq Khan: I thank my hon. Friend, who has a rich history of fighting anti-Semitism and racism. Let us be clear: those who deny the holocaust are not historians revising historytheir views demonstrate anti-Semitism. We must make sure that our children understand, through education, that the holocaust did occur. We cannot pretend that it did not or allow those who say that it did not to have the oxygen of publicity.

John Bercow: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has already given way generously in the early stages of his speech.
	There are misguided souls who labour under the misapprehension that virulent and violent anti-Semitism is but a shameful historical fact, but not something with which we currently need to trouble ourselves. Will the hon. Gentleman use the authority of his office and the content of his speech to set out, as the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) did, the facts to the contrary?
	In the process, will the Ministera generous fellowbe kind enough to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who, sadly, is not in his place today? He is the author of a truly outstanding book entitled Globalising Hatred: The New Anti-Semitism. I had the good fortune to receive it as a Christmas present from my wife, who paid 12.99. The right hon. Gentleman would not like me to say this, but it is available new on Amazon for 9.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a step too far.

Sadiq Khan: The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) is passionate about these issues and chaired a report on anti-Semitism. Today he is in his constituency, where there have been announcements and cuts are being made, trying to save jobs and to help those who might lose their jobs to retrain.
	I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), who chairs the all-party group on genocide prevention; we must not forget that contemporary genocide also exists. He and others from both sides of the Chamber are right to ask the Government to make it clear that anti-Semitism is unacceptable in 2009 and that those forms of hate crime that still occur in the UK and around the world need to be stopped as soon as possible.

Angus MacNeil: Has Her Majesty's Government made any representations through its diplomatic envoys at the Holy Seethe Vaticanabout our disgust at the fact that the bishop who denied the holocaust has been taken back into the fold? If that has not happened, will the Minister give assurances that it could happen? Many people feel that the issue should not go unremarked by the wider world.

Sadiq Khan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. Keen as I am to empire-build and to take over Departments and the responsibilities of other Ministers [ Interruption. ] I take the point. I will find out what efforts have been made via open channels and behind the scenes to express our view to the Vatican about the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised, and I will get back to him via correspondence.

Julian Lewis: I am sorry to keep labouring this point, but what the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said, and has just been reiterated, is of critical importance. The Pope has made a decision to take someone who is an unrepentant denier of the holocaustone of three people who were excommunicated for other reasonsback into his Church, not because that person denies the holocaust but in spite of the fact that he denies ita denial that has recently been repeated. Can the Minister impress on his colleagues the importance of the Government taking a firm view and expressing it in no uncertain terms? I am sure that British Roman Catholics, British Jews and, indeed, British people of no religion whatsoever will be absolutely horrified about what His Holiness the Pope has done.

Sadiq Khan: I pay tribute to the role that the hon. Gentleman has played with regard to David Irving when he went to Oxford. We all know the protestations that the hon. Gentleman made about his disgust at that happening. Let me put it to him this way. Having spoken, as he has, to many survivors of the holocaust and bereaved families, and being aware of the psychological trauma that goes through communities in relation to hate crime, I am caused great concern by the fact that somebody who can deny that the holocaust took place can hold high office or be invited to august institutions to debate the subject. Many Members in this House will share the feelings that the hon. Gentleman has expressed and find the promotion of such a person highly unsavoury. I will turn to the issue of holocaust denial later in my short opening remarks, because it is still, 64 years after the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, raised by so-called academics and opinion-formers.

Theresa Villiers: As the Member for Chipping Barnet, I have the great honour of representing constituents who include survivors of the holocaust. Does the Minister agree that as, sadly, fewer and fewer survivors are left to tell the story directly, it becomes more and more important to educate younger generations about the holocaust so that we can learn lessons, dispel the lies told by holocaust deniers, and try to counter anti-Semitism, the upsurge in which has already been mentioned?

Sadiq Khan: The hon. Lady raises an important point, although I think that I am in danger of taking 12 interventions when I am still on the first page of my speech. I will come on to the important role that the Holocaust Educational Trust plays. This week, I had the pleasure of going to the Holocaust centre in Newark.
	Let me return, if that is permissible, to my speech. The shared resolve that I mentioned about four minutes ago must be not only to learn more about the holocaust and genocides and other recent atrocities, but to learn from them. I am sure that hon. Members join me in committing afresh to ensuring that the lessons at the heart of Holocaust memorial day are both remembered and applied. It is hard to find words with which to speak meaningfully and sufficiently of the holocaust: tragic; evil; devastating; depraved. But the more we speak of the holocaust, and the more we learn about it, the more we must accept that none of these words by themselves is adequate. Perhaps because we can never understand the horror, we can properly say only that it is incomprehensible.

Shailesh Vara: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous with his time. Of course, we commemorate the holocaust through Holocaust memorial day, but does he agree that while the day is being celebrated in schools and town halls throughout the country, it is important that children and other people recognise that genocide and racism are rampant in the world right now; that we must be careful that we do not only talk about the past, but try to learn lessons from, for example, Rwanda and Darfur; and that young people, in particular, must be aware that they are not only commemorating the past but should be learning lessons for the future?

Sadiq Khan: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. When I was at the Holocaust centre on Mondaythe hon. Member for Buckingham will know about the fantastic work that it does through the Aegis Trust and the all-party group on genocide preventiona phone call was received for Dr. Stephen Smith from colleagues in Darfur, where a village had been surrounded by people who may well have committed further genocide. Let us be clear: the victims there are Muslims, so the idea that the victims of genocide are only Jewish people is not true. There are lessons that we can learn about contemporary genocide where the victims have been Christians, Muslims, Jews, those of other faiths, and those without faith. We need to learn that lesson across society.
	It is the sheer enormity of the holocaust and Nazi persecution that is difficult to comprehend. The victims of the holocaust were Jews, Roma and Sinti Gypsies, black people, Slavs, disabled people, gay people, political opponents, Jehovah's Witnesses and trade unionists. However, our inability to comprehend must never become an excuse for reluctance to remember. We must never forget the great horrors that haunted this continent in the last world war and have done so since. Even though the scale of the Shoah was unprecedented, since world war two the same cycle of evil has been played outif such things can be measuredin Cambodia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda and Darfur. The list goes on. As I said, the victims of genocide have been Muslims, Christians, Jews, and those of other faiths and none. It is precisely for this reasonbecause the list does go on, and because evil does recurthat the holocaust should be written in our present, not just consigned to the past.
	Let me deal with the issue of holocaust denial. Holocaust denial and obfuscation are anti-Semitism masked under a veil of pseudo-historical revisionism. It is a gross insult to the victims of Nazism and to survivors of the holocaust. The best weapon against holocaust denial is education. The memory of the holocaust needs to be preserved and its contemporary lessons passed on to future generations. I pay tribute to the Holocaust Educational Trust, whose work with schools and communities has had a big role to play in this. Karen Pollock and her team do remarkable work all year round, not just around Holocaust memorial day and week.

John Bercow: Will the Minister give way?

Sadiq Khan: With the hon. Gentleman's charm, how can I say no?

John Bercow: I am extremely sorry to interrupt the Minister, who has been incredibly generous. As he will know, holocaust deniers often try to conjure up an image of themselves as being in some sense a victimised minority. Will he take the opportunity to point out that David Irving had his day in court when he chose to pick a fight with Deborah Lipstadt, the author of Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory, and lost because he had lied and distorted the record? He got it wrong, and he was exposed: we should keep reminding ourselves and others of that fact.

Sadiq Khan: As someone who has spent my life, in Parliament and before, defending human rights and civil liberties, I find it offensive that someone like David Irving uses freedom of speech as an excuse to propagate such hurtful lies. It causes huge distress, not only psychological but physical, to victims of the holocaust when they hear people such as him saying the things that he does to the audiences that he has been given.
	It is essential to hear the voices of survivors, who have shown the resilience of the human spirit, and essential to honour the memory of the victims, whose stories we must not forget. To truly learn history's lessons, it is essential that we ensure that the baton passes from the citizens of today to the citizens of tomorrow: our young people.
	It was my privilege to attend the national Holocaust memorial day commemoration in Coventry last Sunday. That started, for me, with a reception for survivors. About 100 survivors were present at St. Mary's Guildhall for the lunch. I was humbled and deeply moved to meet and hear the stories of just a handful of them. I would like to pay tribute to their vitality and dignity. So much hatred was thrown at them, for no reason other than the accident of their birth. The way in which they refused to be robbed of their dignity, and displayed such courage and determination, serves as inspiration to us all. The theme of this year's Holocaust memorial day was Standing up to hatred. That message, though inspired by state-sponsored atrocities, should resonate with us all in our everyday lives. It was a privilege to attend the event with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Home Secretary. My hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) and for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) were also present.
	The holocaust teaches us that, tragically, too many people are prepared to stand by or look the other way when they see acts of hatred occurring. At that event we heard the testimony of Regina Franks, a survivor of both Auschwitz and Belsen, a woman whose experience of hatred never conditioned her to hate in return, and whose voicejust one voice out of millions who suffered in the concentration camps or in subsequent genocidessomehow helps us to understand how a single person can make a difference. That is why it was right that we heard contemporary voices say how they would stand up to hatred. Among them were the Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but so too was a 15-year-old boy from Coventry, who had been moved to stand up to hatred because of what he had seen on a visit to a concentration camp. We all need to commit ourselves to challenging prejudice, wherever we see it in our society.
	In a month when we celebrate the election of the first black president of the United States, it is appropriate that I should quote what Martin Luther King said 40 years ago:
	In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
	We all know that, left unchecked, racism and prejudice can have catastrophic consequences, and on Sunday it was good to hear that 15-year-old confirm that he would not allow prejudice to go unchallenged. I was proud to stand with him, and with all the others there, to show our shared resolve.
	I pay tribute to the work of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and the Holocaust Educational Trust. I shall not talk about the funding that the Government have given them, because that would be crude. This is more about the values that we share with those organisations and about standing with them shoulder to shoulder, standing up against hatred and saying with a shared voice, Never again.

Paul Goodman: Holocaust memorial day is, of course, 27 January and on that day this year, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), the shadow Secretary of State for International Development, laid a wreath at Yad Vashem on behalf of our party.
	The debate is necessarily sombre, and as the Minister said, each year it is one in which party politics is irrelevant. Each year, we probe the causes of the horror of the holocaust, its roots planted in the racist ideology of the Nazis and, even deeper, in Europe's terrible history of anti-Semitism. We honour the work of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, the Holocaust Educational Trust, the Community Security Trust, the all-party group against anti-Semitism, many of whose Members are in their places, and many other organisations. We condemn holocaust denial, as the Minister rightly did, as we do all racism, xenophobia and Islamophobia.
	We wonder how the holocaust could have happened, and how most Germans could have averted their eyes from the attempted extermination of an entire people in Europe. In 1933, Germany could claim to be the most civilised nation in the world. Less than 15 years later, 6 million people were dead. Before we rush to judgment, however, we ask ourselves each year whether we are certain that we would have behaved more honourably. We always join together in this debate to say, Never again.
	As the Minister said, the Jewish people were not the only victims of the holocaust. There were also Poles, disabled people, political prisoners, Jehovah's Witnesses, gay people and many others. Nor, as has been pointed out from the Conservative Benches, was the holocaust the only exercise in mass murder. The Holocaust Memorial Day Trust's website refers to Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda and Darfur.
	Of itself, anti-Semitism is surely no worse than any other form of that vile thing, racism. However, the location of the extermination camps in Europe and the historical backdrop against which they were set place on us a unique responsibility. As politicians, we must be especially sensitive to eruptions of anti-Semitism, given the speed at which it gathered pace in Germany.
	As has been mentioned, since 27 December, there has been what the Holocaust Educational Trust describes as an unprecedented rise in the number of anti-Semitic incidents in Britain. Our streets have seen the trashing of Starbucks, Tesco and other shops, assaults on visibly Jewish people, the attempted burning down of a synagogue in north London and graffiti that reads simply, Kill the Jews. As the House knows, 27 December was the day on which Israel went into Gaza with overpowering force. I understand why passions run high in relation to Gaza among many people from all backgrounds. As the Conservative Member with the largest number of Muslim constituents, I know the rage, the anger, the feeling of impotence and the sense that democracy has failed.

Lee Scott: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that neo-Nazi parties could well use the mist of what has happened in the past few weeks to raise anti-Semitism and try to cause divisions in communities in which there has been harmony in recent years?

Paul Goodman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I shall come to that point later.

Andrew Dismore: On the appalling situation in Gaza and southern Israel, does the hon. Gentleman agree that people who support the Palestinian cause do themselves no justice by suggesting that what is going on there is another form of holocaust or genocide? It clearly is not and, by suggesting that, they undermine their own case and do not do anything to contribute to the attempt to find a long-term resolution of the conflict in the middle east.

Paul Goodman: I broadly agree with the hon. Gentleman, and in fact he has anticipated part of the direction in which I intend to take my speech. Although this is not a debate about Gaza, and you would rightly rule out of order any Member who tried to turn it into one, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make the point that we must appreciate how strongly many people feel about the situation. I wish to put on record our position that any alleged war crimes must be investigated.

David Winnick: Does the hon. Gentleman also accept that a number of Jewspossibly a minority, I do not knowfeel as strongly as any Muslim against what the Israelis did in Gaza?

Paul Goodman: In many ways, that is related to a point that has been made from the Conservative Benches, which is that feelings about this issue are not confined to members of any one ethnic or religious group.
	It is incontestable that what happens abroad can stir violent extremism at home. However, I wish to make it absolutely clear that violence abroad must not be allowed to spill on to the streets of Britain, from whatever quarter. People must take great care not accidentally to inflame what they rightly decry. We must all take great care when language involving holocaust comparisons is used, as the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) said a moment ago.
	It is inevitably asked how people who have experienced suffering can inflict suffering on others. We cannot avoid asking that question in relation to the Palestinians, and some Israelis acknowledge the force of it. However, there is a crucial difference in character between the horrors of waryes, even of wars in which war crimes are committedand the holocaust, which was the attempted extermination of an entire people on an industrial scale.
	I am sure that the overwhelming majority of those who recently took to the streets to protest peacefully about the carnage in Gaza will have been appalled by the anti-Semitic attacks that the CST has recorded. I hope that all would therefore concede that banners with stars of David alongside swastikas, and placards conflating Israel with Nazi Germany, are not only distasteful but risk inflaming anti-Semitism. I am sure that the House would agree that costumes portraying anti-Semitic stereotypesfor example the demonstrator who, in caricature, wore a mask with a hideously large nose and devoured an imitation bloody child, thereby suggesting the blood libel of Jews eating gentile childrenare nothing less than Jew-baiting.
	Today, as we say, never again, we must look forward with hope. Jews, Muslims, Christians and others up and down the country are working together to build mutual understanding, cohesion and peace, as the council for Christian and Muslim relations in my constituency does. Such groups are not silent, so it would not be accurate to call them part of the silent majority, but they are certainly part of the decent majority, and I hope that the whole House recognises what they do.
	The recent spike in anti-Semitic incidents can reasonably be expected to ease. None the less, I believe that we have been warned. Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, recently prayed for the destruction of the Jews
	down to the very last one.
	Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran's spiritual leader, spoke of the worldwide necessity of martyrdom in relation to Gaza. Mahmoud Zahhar, a Hamas leader, said that the killing of Jewish children is now legitimate all over the world.
	I close with three swift questions to the Under-Secretary, who, as ever, made a good speech today. First, will he give the House a categorical assurance that all police forces will record anti-Semitic crimes by the end of 2008-09, as promised. Secondly, what is the Government's view of reports that the Muslim Council of Britain boycotted Holocaust memorial day this year? If they are true, will the Government's engagement policy in relation to the MCB change? If so, in what way? Thirdly, Ministers rightly met groups concerned about the conflict in Gaza and Israel recently. What steps is the Under-Secretary taking to ensure not only that Ministers meet groups, but that groups from different religious backgrounds and from none can meet each other in such circumstancesobviously, I am referring not only to Gaza and Israelto help reduce tensions?
	I have spoken briefly because many hon. Members wish to participate in the debate. We welcome it and, together, we say, Never again.

Anne Snelgrove: I add my thanks to the Leader of the House for allowing us to have the debate today. I hope that it will be an annual event, as many Members from all parties support it.
	Holocaust memorial week is an opportunity to remember and honour those people who lost their lives in the holocaust. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, 6 million Jews, as well as Roma, Sinti, disabled people, Poles, Russians, political opponents, homosexuals and trade unionists were murdered by the Nazi regime. Approximately 1.5 million children were killed in the holocaust. Those children would have been our future, and we should honour their tragically short lives. One of the most affecting parts of the Yad Vashem memorial in Jerusalem is the memorial to children. It is a silent memorial. When one thinks of the noise and movement of children, a silent memorial is very affecting.
	I commend the Under-Secretary and the Opposition spokesman for their excellent speeches. Both used the phrase, Never again, which is used frequently about the holocaust. However, to society's cost, the world has failed more than once to prevent or halt genocidein Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda and now Sudan. In our interconnected world, we have a responsibility to act to prevent any repetition of the mass murder and attempted extermination of a people that was the holocaust. That is only one reason for the holocaust's relevance today.
	In the 1930s, Germany was hijacked by the rise of far-right nationalism, which preached intolerance, hate and racism. In recent years, we have witnessed an increase in support for far-right parties here in local elections and abroad in countries such as Austria. That is why this year's themestand up to hatredis so important in a year of European elections. I hope that hon. Members of all parties will work together to combat any racism and religious hatred that threatens to come out of those elections.
	Racism, Islamophobia and anti-Semitism plague community cohesion and race relations, and all politicians must unite to work against the reactionary and illogical mantras of the far right. Remembering, and educating people, especially young people, about the holocaust are invaluable tools in confronting racism and bigotry. That is why I am so pleased that, working with Conservative-controlled Swindon borough council, we are together bringing the Anne Frank and You exhibition to our town in April. It will help to educate and emphasise the relevance today of the holocaust of yesterday to not only our young people in Swindon but the whole Wiltshire community. It will help us to tackle some of the local problems that we have experienced between different religions and races and different parts of our community in Swindon. It will also help children to understand and reflect on what is happening in the world today and on what happened in the past.
	I pay special tribute to Rod Bluh, the leader of Swindon borough council, members of whose family were on the last trains out of Nazi Germany before the second world war, for his leadership and determination that the Anne Frank and You exhibition should come to Swindon.

Angus MacNeil: I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady. I am sure that she agrees that genocide and mass murder do not stem from only one part of the political spectrumwe think of the works of Stalin, and of Mao in the cultural revolution. Like the Under-Secretary, last summer I spent some time with VSO, and I was sent to Cambodia, where an auto-genocide happened. At that time, I was a young boy and blissfully unaware of what was happening there. That happened in an extreme left country, but was stopped by another country from the same part of the political spectrum. Vietnam's interference and invasion thankfully stopped the mass murder of a third of the Cambodian population. Is not the overriding point the one that the Under-Secretary made about others standing by

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions must be brief; the time for the debate is limited.

Anne Snelgrove: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I did not mean to suggest that bigotry and hatred came from only one part of the political spectrum. I thank him for making that point.
	The fundamental themes of justice, political literacy and identity inspire and motivate young people to recognise their rights and responsibilities as citizens. We hope that that will come out of the Anne Frank and You exhibition. By making sense of the past, and realising where unchallenged discrimination can lead, young people are empowered to contribute positively to a future society that we hope will be free from discrimination and hatred.
	I pay tribute to the Holocaust Educational Trust, which seeks to educate not only children but all people, including parliamentarians, about the holocaust, not just for its own sake, but so that we might learn the lessons that it holds for us today. I have the privilege of being a member of a cross-party party group that the Holocaust Educational Trust took to Poland last year. We visited several places to witness the continuing effect of the holocaust and the concentration camps on modern Polish society as well as the effect on Poles when it happened.
	One visit that will stay with me for ever was to Majdanek concentration camp. We do not hear much about it in this country because almost everybody died; there were few or no survivors to bear witness. I find it difficult to articulate how I felt after that visit. Although we went in July, it was a horrible, drizzly, foggy day, and the area seemed surrounded in gloomrightly so. As we went into the huts, I was struck by the smell and the visual drabness of the whole area. My imagination still goes into overdrive about what happened at that terrible place. It is right that the Polish nation and the world keep such places available for us to visit.
	I pay tribute to the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust in taking sixth formers from my constituency and those of other hon. Members to visit Auschwitz each year. I hope to visit it this year, with children from my constituency. I think that they will find it as affecting an experience as I did, and it is through such experiences that we keep alive what happened during the second world war and ensure that it does not happen again.
	Another feature of our visit was an opportunity to meet some of our counterparts in the Polish Parliament, and representatives from its President's and Prime Minister's offices, to discuss ways of identifying and combating anti-Semitism and racism. We told them about the British Government's support for the Holocaust Educational Trust's student visits to Auschwitz-Birkenau. We need to ensure that dialogue and discussion continue between our parliamentarians and Polish parliamentarians, so that, through the European Union, we can encourage Poland to come more into this century as well as to look back and deal with the issues arising from the holocaust and the second world war that it has found so difficult to deal with.

Andrew Dismore: I, too, was on that visit, and what struck me when we visited the Warsaw ghetto was that the consequences are still with us today. We saw the tram tracks on what was formerly Warsaw's equivalent of Oxford street, which had been completely devastated. We also visited the villages, the majority of whose populations had been Jewish, where the Jewish people had been entirely wiped out. It showed just how close the Nazis had been to succeeding, and I think that that emphasises the importance of what my hon. Friend is saying today.

Anne Snelgrove: My hon. Friend has eloquently made the point that I was about to make. Even though the liberation of Auschwitz took place 64 years ago, we cannot say that the problems are not still with us today. They are a stain on Europe, particularly where those concentration camps were situated. We need to work closely with the Polish Government and the Polish people to enable them to overcome that stain, to recognise where Jewish people lived in their country, and to celebrate the past as well as recognising the difficulties that the people in that country faced in dealing withor not dealing withwhat was going on among them at the time.
	Majdanek was a camp that was situated right on top of a community in a city. It was not hidden from civilisation. That is shocking. I give that example not as a condemnation of the Polish people but as a warning to all of us. If we are not careful, it will happen again among us. That is the true meaning of Never again.

Lembit �pik: My parents were among those who were provided with refuge in the UK from the turmoil of war and the fracturing of a continent. For that reason, I am extremely proud and grateful that, as a nation, we honour the victims of the holocaust by officially commemorating this day. I would like to pay tribute to Europeans across the continent who provided refuge to those fleeing persecution. I only regret that, once again, the presswith one or two noble exceptionsseem to be too busy to attend this debate in person. I hope that that absence will not be repeated next year.
	The philosopher George Santayana said:
	Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
	Our aim is to live by that moral and to remember the 6 million victims of the holocaust, as well as the many other victims of genocide who have already been mentioned. Unfortunately, genocide remains a stain on the 20th century, with around 150,000 victims in East Timor, 500,000 in Cambodia, 500,000 in Ethiopia, and more in Tibet, Bosnia and Rwanda. Genocide continues even now in Darfur and towards the Karen people in Burma. It is also worrying that the international community has not been able to draw a line under the Rwandan genocide, with remnants of the tribal tensions spilling over into the present conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
	The situation facing the indigenous people of West Papua is just as bad. One of the worst examples is the displacement and killing of thousands of people to make way for the giant American and British-owned Freeport mine, the largest gold mine in the world, which has reduced a sacred mountain to a crater and poisoned the local river system. We talk about this here, but, collectively, we still allow it to happen elsewhere.
	I also pay tribute to the Holocaust Educational Trust, which is so ably led by Karen Pollock, and without which I doubt we would be having this debate. Sadly, however, there are threats to the holocaust's memory. According to the BBC, 94 per cent. of funding for the museum at Auschwitz-Birkenau comes from Poland, with only 6 per cent. coming from elsewhere. I would like to ask the Minister whether our Government would consider making a more formal financial contribution, in order to keep the memory alive. The impact of visiting the museum in Auschwitz is profound, and almost no one who has been there can forget it or deny the holocaust.

Julian Lewis: Last year, I went to Auschwitz-Birkenau under the aegis of the Holocaust Educational Trust, and it was indeed a profoundly moving experience. I also went to see how the trust prepared the youngsters before they visited the site, and I was hugely impressed by the contribution of a man called Joe Perl, a holocaust survivor. After all he had been through, he was still filled with enough love of humanity to carry his message to those young children. I was also impressed by the fact that when the children came back, they were encouraged to talk about their experiences and to think of ideas to ensure that these things can never happen again.

Lembit �pik: I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman. The lessons to be learned from Auschwitz are a priceless contribution to education, and I encourage all right hon. and hon. Members to write a letter to their local schools to encourage the take-up of that scheme.
	In addition, I would like to cite a film that I saw recently. It was called Defiance and it chronicled the outstanding contribution of two heroes in Poland: the Bielski brothers, Tuvia and Zus. They harboured 1,200 citizens in the forests of Poland to give them protection at the height of the holocaust. They personify the heroism of so many in Europe's darkest hour.
	Education is our greatest weapon against the recurrence of genocide in Europe. I join others on both sides of the House in honouring the victims of the holocaust, along with those who were brave enough to condemn it in the past, and those who promote its memory in the present so that it can serve as a practical reminder for the future.
	We must also commend the work of the Kindertransport, before world war two broke out, in securing the future for more than 9,000 Jewish children. Such examples show the human race at its best, in contrast with the very worst, as illustrated by the holocaust. Let us also remember the fragility of tolerance. People may make a pariah of Germany, but in the Channel Islands, which were occupied, there was a degree of co-operation by people not far from here. That suggests to me that we have to be vigilant, ensure that the underlying causes of intolerance are challenged, and hope that this kind of behaviour never ceases to be characterised as wrongan opportunity to scapegoat by those who are unwilling to see the bigger picture.
	The holocaust of world war two is a salutary lesson in what has happened on our own European doorstep. But, more than that, it is a blood-stained testimony to what happens when an ordinary, decent society is allowed to descend into extraordinary barbarism through the abandonment of basic human rights. It is our duty to end the systematic killing of people and groups across the globe, long after the eye witnesses to the holocaust are gone. The few remaining holocaust survivors will not always be with us, and that is why we need the museum. Standing up to hatred means taking a stand for a future in which we simply do not allow systematic killing to take place anywhere in the world. That will require us to revisit our approach to foreign policy, because we do not always get it right.
	I am grateful that the Government have done a great deal to embrace the memory of the holocaust. We are not just standing up against hatred; we are taking a stand for a future in which the honour of those who died in the holocaust will never be abandoned, and in which the errors of the holocaust will never be repeated.

Gordon Banks: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. We all know the history of the holocaust, and it is a shame that we do not all believe it. The crisis in Europe between 1914 and 1945 is a subject that has interested me all my adult life. Fully understanding the effects of world war one and the treaty of Versailles on the German nation is, I believe, fundamental to understandingif it is possible to understandhow Hitler rose to power in Germany.

Andrew Dismore: My hon. Friend mentions the period between 1914 and the second world war. We commemorate the holocaust, of course, which relates only to the second world war. Does he agree that it is about time we also acknowledged the Armenian genocide committed at the hands of the Ottoman Turks in 1915, which is unfortunately often forgotten, although it was cited by Hitler as one of the sources of the genocide against the Jews in the holocaust?

Gordon Banks: My hon. Friend is right. I hope that people in history will learn from historyfrom its good points, anyway.
	For people in Hitler's Germany who were not Jews, not gay, not disabled, not a Jehovah's Witness, not a communist or a Roma and who kept their noses clean, life under Hitler, after the failures of the Weimar republic, could be good or even fine. So what does that really say? To me it says that if people are prepared to close their eyes to what is happening to the people they work with, if they are content to turn away from what is going on in their streets, and if they can put out of their minds what is happening to members of their family, things are not so bad.
	It is the ability to turn a blind eye to hatred and intolerance that worries me today. We cannot and must not judge people on their sexuality, religion or ethnicityyet all too often we do. I am also concerned when we all too often allow others to express these views without appropriate challenge. There are people who display these intolerances in our country's politics todaythey are sometimes dressed up, but they are there. We are failing the victims of the holocaust and every decent tolerant person in the UK if we fail to face down this challenge, and that is what it isa real challenge.
	The policy of Hitler and Himmler towards the persecution of non-Aryans was often a piecemeal approachdeadly, yes, but piecemeal none the less. It was a policy that grew into action, the stronger the Nazis became. We all know the end results. History shows us what happens when fascists dress up their policies to gather public support. To give the German people the benefit of the doubt, they could not see the extreme nature of what was coming. Today, we can see what happened and we must face up to and resist the opportunity to embark on such policies, both domestically and internationally. It is no defence for us to turn our back on persecution and genocide, wherever they happen. Yes, it might be a long way away, but so, too, in relative terms, was Germany a long way away from the average Briton in the 1930s.
	What do we make of those who peddle holocaust denial, those who fuel a propaganda movement that is active in many countries? It is the responsibility of everyone in positions of power and influence to do everything they can to counter such statementsfailure to do so is unacceptable as it increases their credibility. We must face down and defeat those who deny that the holocaust took place. Such remarks are offensive beyond words; they are the work of bigots. We must challenge these people, whether they are Heads of State, leaders of political parties, bishops or revolutionary freedom fighters, for want of a better expression. Genocide is not something that died in 1945; it is still here today.
	While we are here in the Chamber talking about this subject in a relatively calm and measured way, we must spare a thought for those who are caught up in this horrorpeople seeing members of their family killed, raped, dismembered and trying to do just enough to get through till tomorrow whenguess what?they face the torture, rape and killing all over again. I fear that the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust will never end. I call on this Government and other democratically elected Governments to step up their efforts as we try to stamp out genocide and hatred.
	I was fortunate to visit Auschwitz-Birkenau and come backbut more than 1 million did not. When I visited Auschwitz-Birkenau, there were pupils from two schools in my constituencyLornshill academy and Crieff high schoolvisiting for the first time. I am happy that other schools in Ochil and South Perthshire continue to send their pupils there; I hope that they will continue to take up that opportunity for years to come. The impressions left on pupils after these trips are, as we know, often life changing. With every life we change in this way, we may save thousands. To me, that is a good rate of interest.
	Wandering though Auschwitz, one would not really appreciate what went on. Sure, there are areas where the gas chambers and the like still exist, but at first sight this place could be any kind of campus; indeed, it had been a Polish army barracks. Birkenau brought the real horrors home to me: the remaining horse-shed accommodation, not for horses but for humans, and the railway track in, but not out. If anyone needs to see how man's inhumanity to man is best displayed, go to Birkenau.
	Every year I urge secondary schools in my constituency to take part in this visit programme and I will continue to do so. Although the lessons are historical, the impact is, sadly, as relevant today as it ever was. To stand up to hatred is something we should all be prepared to do. To fail to do so tarnishes the memory of everyone who has been subjected to persecution and increases the likelihood that it will be us next.

Andrew Robathan: May I first apologise to the Minister, as I have a long-standing doctor's appointment that will pull me away? I want to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) that I thought he made an extremely good and thoughtful speech. Unusually, I would like to compliment the Minister on his excellent and well balanced speech.
	I was brought up in the aftermath of world war two, as were many others. I was brought up with Exodus by Leon Urisnot only the book, but the film with its haunting theme music. When I was brought up, there was no question but that one saw the issue of the holocaust as an integral part of the experience of world war two.
	During 1978, I went to the Bergen-Belsen camp, where it is true that the birds do not sing, which is most extraordinary. I was stationed in Germany, surrounded by old work camps, which again brought the issue home to me. Last February, I was lucky enough to be able to go to Auschwitz with the HET.
	As a matter of interest, I was once vice-chairman of the all-party genocide group, which was founded by my friend and former colleague, Oona King, after a visit to Rwanda, where, of course, 2 million were killed. I have also been vice-chairman of the all-party Sudan group, and I note that Bashir may be charged with war crimes over what is alleged to be genocide in Darfur. I would welcome that. I say that not because my CV is terribly interesting, but because as a result of my age, I know a lot about the holocaust. I regret to say that as survivors increasingly die off, fewer people do.
	I wish to praise and devote the rest of my speech particularly to the work of the HET, which has rightly been much mentioned. I praise the HET not because it took me to Auschwitzalthough I am very grateful for thatbut because what it does is valuable and absolutely vital. The trips are very moving, particularly for those who do not know much about the history of the 20th century. The education it provides in schools and elsewhere is again vital.
	As people will know, the HET was founded by my former parliamentary neighbour, the noble Lord Janner, and Merlyn Rees in 1998. I welcome the Government money given over the past couple of yearsabout 1.5 million a year, I believeto assist the programme. That is valuable, although the visits took place long before the Government money arrived. I would like to say to every Member in the House that if they have not visited Auschwitz, they should do so. It is really valuable, and to take children there is hugely moving.

Lembit �pik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the outstanding contribution to the memory of the holocaust created by Lord Merlyn-Rees and Lord Janner illustrates how every single one of us has the capacity to make a substantial difference to the opportunities for the public of today and the children of tomorrow to learn the lessons of Auschwitz?

Andrew Robathan: I would indeed agree, which is why we need to inculcate tolerance of others in our society.
	Let me touch briefly on holocaust denial. To anyone who has looked at the facts, it is of course absolutely ridiculous, but as the HET says, it is best defeated by education and knowledge. David Irving, whom we have heard about already, went to prison in Austria for some of his ridiculous utterances. Although I have no time for the man, I wonder whether sending such an idiotic figure to prison is the best answer.
	We also heard earlier about Richard Williamsona self-appointed bishop, I think, in a sect of the Roman Catholic Church, to which he has recently been readmitted. I watched him on YouTube shortly before I came here and found out that the gas chambers did not exist! He denies their existence. People like him are best defeated by education, knowledge, fact and ridicule. Frankly, I deprecate him completely. I believe that the holocaust denier who is currently in the highest position is President Ahmadinejad of Iran, and I find that much more worrying than the views of some silly man called Richard Williamson.
	Education is important. As survivors die off, there will be fewer people to tell others what happened to them and to move us all. That was brought home to me today by the obituary, in  The Daily Telegraph, of a Pole called Alec Maisner, who became an air vice-marshal in the Royal Air Force. He was not Jewish, but he was at Warsaw university in 1939, when Stalin took over Warsaw, and many of his fellow students were Jewish. He spent two years in Stalin's labour camps in Siberia before coming to Britain and becoming an air vice-marshal.
	I mention that not because it represents part of the holocaust that we commemorateof course, Stalin killed some 25 million people, probably his own people, for almost any reason, but not particularly for racist reasonsbut because as people like the air vice-marshal move on, we need to keep the knowledge alive. That is why I say again that I praise the work of the HET and hope that we will indeed learn the lessons of history.

Dari Taylor: The theme of Holocaust memorial day is Stand up to hatred. With that in mind, I want to quote from an article about Carl Schmitt. If anyone is an exemplar of hatred, that man is. He was an anti-Semite; he made it very clear that he was a Nazi; and he was a
	leading political thinker of his day.
	He
	held that liberalism is too weak to sustain passion and conviction at times of crisis. For him, real politics is about identifying an enemy and a cause you are willing to die for.
	That is the sort of pernicious, vicious material that is often peddled today by the British National party. We should be very aware that that is exactly the philosophy that it peddles within our communities.
	Some years ago I, like many other Members, was privileged to visit Auchswitz and Birkenau. I say privileged because the HET, to which I am very grateful, invited me to take along some young students from Stockton. I echo what others have said today when I tell the House that the visit would have been valuable to me in any event, but in the company of those young students I found it more valuable than I can say.
	There was an ugly reality in the human tragedy that those camps represented, and they clearly had a powerful impact on the students. I hoped that the visit would meet a real need and give them a sense that when humans work together, their solidarity ensures that we can cope with any problem with which we are faced. I believe that the visit did that, but it did a great deal more as well.
	The students were mortified as they looked at glass cases full of human hair, shoes and glasses, and read the heartbreaking statements of people who had managed to escape and to survive that hideous period. They told their stories of how, during the bitterest of winters, they were made to take off their shoes and were given a pair of shoes both of which were for the left foot or which did not fit them. The humiliation was absolute. That was the absolute force of what the Nazis were about. Those people were starving; they were emaciated; and children were dying around them. There was a hideous sense of fear, which could be felt through what those people were saying. They were so frightened because, while Auschwitz was dreadful, Birkenau was worse. Many knew that they might have to make that journey knowing that it would be the last journey that they would ever make.
	The hideousness of those atrocities was overwhelming. I saw it in the students' eyes. These were robust, up-for-it students who had been full of beans at 6 am on arrival at the airport that morning, feeling that this was a good visit. However, as soon as Auschwitz hit them, their heads were down and they did not know where to look. They could not believe that humanity had been so degraded. They could not believe that it had produced the hideous glass cases that they had seen and the stories to which they were listening. There was a powerful, overwhelming, eerie silence.
	The move from Auschwitz to Birkenau was horrendousall of it. I wanted to cuddle the students. I wanted to put my arms around them and say, Together, we can ensure that this will never happen again. However, that would not have been appropriate. I knew that, like me, they had to face that reality. They had to ask themselves the question, What would I have done if I had been in Germany or Poland at that time? I am not a Jewess; they are not Jews. What would we have done? Would we have held the line? Would we have supported those people? Would we have done all that we could to protect them? The question is profound. We all want to believe that we would have supported those people, but I still ask myself this question: would it have been me and my children first, or would I have been a decent person and said, Humanity comes firstall people come first?
	I have to tell the House that that was an awesome visit. Eventually, something very positive came out of it. I went to the school assemblies and heard the youngsters talk. They gave their impression of the day; they read poems; they discussed with their groups what they had faced and what had happened. I had a feeling that the visit had strengthened their need and concern for human solidarity always to be in their livestheir principled position. It is possible to learn from the holocaust, and to learn from the hideousness of the 1930s.
	Like many other Members, I was a student, and this was a specialist area of my politics degree course. I knew the numbers, and I knew what the Nazis were about, but facing it is a different matter. I tried to explain to the students that it is sometimes necessary to understand that fear can be transformed into indifference, causing people to say, I do not want to know. The inability to respect differences becomes a way of blocking out the fact that something is happening in one's own street.
	It is important for us all to recognise that a visit to Auschwitz-Birkenau is very valuable. It is equally important for us all to understandas those students clearly understoodthat any form of racial superiority is a tool used by some to divide humans. It is not there to produce human respect; it is not there to produce the best in all nations.
	Today, we hear the statement to which we all cling and which we must repeat loudly and clearly; we must stand up to hatred. We must say to those who look the other way that if they do not stand up and support decency, there will inevitably be a Rwanda, a Darfur or a Bosnia. One day it might be them and their families who are involved, so standing up is important.
	Footballers gave us a tremendous example. Black players were spat at and had things thrown at them while they were playing, but they stood up and said, Give racism the red card. The fact that ordinary youngsters, often from impoverished backgrounds in my communities, have leaders who will give them a steer and something to believe in is crucial. We can do something; we do not have to turn away.
	We must learn the lessons of the 1930s and say to our children and our communities, Never again. I would

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady's time is up.

Greg Hands: It has been a truly excellent debate, particularly the emotional and moving speech by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor). I was a co-sponsor of the early-day motion on Holocaust memorial day, which has attracted 176 signatures from Members of all parties. On Tuesday, Holocaust memorial day, I was delighted to welcome the Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks to Lady Margaret school in my constituency for morning assembly. The school, always ranked as one of the country's best performing comprehensives, did us all extremely proud, led by the headmistress Sally Whyte.
	Two girls participated in the HET visit to Auschwitz in November with me, and we heard from both of them. Both Jennifer Gannaway and Lara Hawkins spoke, with short but moving accounts of their day in Auschwitz-Birkenau. Jennifer spoke of how the accumulated possessions of the victims, which are so clearly on display in Auschwitz, left an important impression on her:
	It decoded the 1.1 million killed at Auschwitz-Birkenau into 1.1 million individuals whose names we saw on the side of their suitcases.
	Lara described the overall chilling effect of the experience:
	The only way I can effectively describe to you my feelings after visiting Auschwitz-Birkenau was that I felt completely numb and hollow inside.
	Most importantly of all, we heard from a holocaust survivor, Mrs. Mala Tribich. I believe that she is one of only a couple of dozen holocaust survivors in the UK. The role that people such as Mrs. Tribich are playing and will continue to play in the coming years is a vital one; there is nothing more effective in learning about the holocaust than hearing it related at first hand.
	Mrs. Tribich brought many of us at the assembly close to tears as she described how, as a small child, she lost her parents and almost all her immediate family. She described arriving at Ravensbrueck and being processed on arrival. She had her clothes removed and her hair shaved. She said:
	When we emerged the other end, we could not recognise one another, we all looked the same. Our identities, our personalities, our very souls had been taken from us. We were dehumanised.
	Mrs Tribich also said something important:
	Whenever I speak to young people in schools I am invariably asked 'Do you hate the Germans?' Well, generally speaking it is not in my nature to hate, but more particularly I always state categorically that I do not attach any blame or hold any sort of grudge against the post war generations. Forgiveness of the perpetrators, however, is quite another matter.
	It is that on which I wanted to reflect briefly today; how we and other European countries are dealing with this horrible past.
	I have relatives in both Germany and Russia. I also have a huge number of Polish constituents and go to Poland fairly frequently. I wanted to compare how those countries are dealing with their pasts, as regards the holocaust and anti-Semitism. Before I go down that road, I do not want to give any impression of equivalence in the historical experience of those countries. The holocaust was very largely a Nazi German perpetration, the result of the evil mind of Adolf Hitler and the active participation of thousands of Germans and the passive contribution of millions. The Poles and Russians also had millions of victims at the hands of Nazi Germany.
	Germany has, in my view, done a pretty good job of dealing with its past. All post-war German Governments have recognised the special responsibility that Germany has towards both the worldwide Jewish community and Israel. Most Germans I know are shocked by modern-day anti-Semitism. German towns and cities do a pretty good job of preserving historic Jewish memory; the refurbished Oranienburger strasse synagogue in Berlin is testimony to that. The Dachau and Sachsenhausen concentration camps are well-preserved and attract a lot of visitors. There are still anti-Semitic incidents in Germany, but they are pretty rare, so I commend the work Germany has done over the past six decades. Poland is another interesting caseitself a tragic victim of Nazi-German crimesbut also with a difficult past in relation to its former Jewish citizens.
	As I have said, I visited Auschwitz in November. I have been there before; my previous visit was in February 1991, when Auschwitz was still arranged as it had been in the communist era, which had only just drawn to a close. What was striking about Auschwitz in 1991 was that the Jewish nature of the holocaust had been written out almost entirely. Of course, a lot of Poles were murdered in Auschwitz as well, but the impression given at that time was that there was no specifically Jewish aspect of the holocaust.
	I am delighted to be able to say that the arrangement of the camp museum has now been thoroughly changed for the better. Primacy is now given to the Jewish nature of the holocaust, but space is also given to the thousands of non-Jewish victimsincluding Poles, Roma and homosexualswho were targeted by the Nazis out of pure prejudice. There is, for example, a Catholic shrine to a Polish victim beatified by Pope John Paul II. That is an extremely sensitive area and more needs to be done, but may I commend the improvement over the past couple of decades in how Poland has dealt with the tragic history of its former Jewish citizens?
	The HET rightly includes during its Lessons from Auschwitz trip a visit to the excellent new museum of Jewish life in Oswiecim. At the museum, one gets the impression of how important Jewish life was in towns in Poland before 1939. The same is true of Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, which shows the importance of Jewish life across central and eastern Europe in the years prior to the holocaust.
	Finally, let me say a little about Russia. I do not have enough time to go into the details, but I think Russia needs to do more to combat anti-Semitism. Partly, this is a hangover from Soviet times, when, due to foreign policy reasons, anti-Semitism was disgracefully encouraged on political grounds. I saw that in my work in the late 1980s, when I was active in the Soviet Jewry movement on behalf of refuseniks and the student and academic campaign for Soviet Jewry. Anti-Semitism was very much part of the official ideology of the Soviet Union. Therefore, I think Russia would do very well to learn from some of the historical experience of Germany and Poland since 1945.
	I commend the work of the HET. Some 64 years after the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, it is a challenging role for it to keep learning from that terrible and unique historical experience. It does its job well, and long may that continue.

Lee Scott: I start by following the example of other Members, of all parties, who have contributed to the debate, by paying tribute to the HETto Karen Pollock, Lord Janner and the entire team. They take the lessons of the 1930s and 1940s out to schools, and that is vital. Without that message, the deniers who would lie to people across the world would have strength. They prevent the deniers that strength, and we should praise and commend them for everything that they do; may they go from strength to strength, and long may they continue to keep the memory alive when the survivors are no longer alive.
	I would like to pay tribute to somebody else. We may not agree on many things, but on this issue I would like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who in 1999 proposed a Bill to introduce a day to learn about, and remember, the holocaust. I say to the hon. Gentleman that we owe him a debt of gratitude; thank you.
	Last Tuesday, I stood at the holocaust memorial in my neighbouring constituency of Ilford, South, together with the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith). I would like again to pay tribute to councillor Alan Weinberg; he is now leader of the council but in his mayoral year he initiated the construction of the memorial at which we now hold the annual ceremony. I was moved by the mix of people who attended that ceremony, which included schoolchildren from across the borough. I should say to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) that my local imam was also present; I cannot say what happens elsewhere, but in our area the imam attended and the Muslim community was represented. Indeed, children from the Muslim community spoke about the holocaust, and we should all pay tribute to that.
	One of the most moving moments of that ceremony was when we all united and said the Kaddish, which is the holy memorial prayer in the Jewish religion, for the 6 million people of all religions who perished in the holocaust and the millions who have perished since in other genocides around the world. We have to ask ourselves whether we have learned anything. I am not convinced that we have when I see some of the things that take place, be it in Darfur, Rwanda, Bosnia or elsewhere. We must learn from history. Why do we do this to each other? I am not clever enough to know the answer.
	I would like to relate a moving story from a few years ago. I was humbled and honoured to visit Theresienstadt in what is now the Czech Republic. I went with two of my closest friends, Alan and Tana Fox. Tana was born in Theresienstadt, when her sister, Bela Molnar, was four years oldthey were the family Goldstien; they had survived the holocaust. Standing with the couple at Theresienstadt moved me to tears. I wondered how humanity could have done this: how man could have done this for any reason. There is nothing, and there will never be anything, in this world that could justify people doing such things to each other.
	We also visited Babi Yar, where Jews were rounded up, thrown into a ravine and shot. Again, I was moved to tears, and that does not happen often. One hon. Member mentioned that no birds sing at such locations, and that is true; no bird sang when I made my visitthere was not a sound. As I walked around, it was impossible for me to comprehend truly what had taken place. I cannot comprehend it, and God forbid that I should ever be able to do so because that would mean that it had happened again.

Julian Lewis: My hon. Friend's mention of Theresienstadt reminded me of one of the brightest aspects of the whole holocaust disaster: the behaviour of the people of Denmark, from the monarch down. There were 10,000 Jews in Denmark and the people of Denmark were tipped off by an anti-Nazi German diplomat as to when those people were going to be rounded up, and they got the vast majority of them safely away to Sweden. Only 500 or so were rounded up; they were sent to Theresienstadt and thanks to the ongoing campaigns on their behalf most of them survived even that experience. One thing that is not mentioned often enough is the outstanding behaviour of the Danes, including the king, who said, If my people are going to wear a yellow star under occupation, so will I.

Lee Scott: My hon. Friend is, of course, totally right in everything that he saidthose events should be recorded and honoured.
	There are many holocaust survivors in my constituency. Over the years, they have told me their stories, and I have listened carefully. There were tragedies, where whole families were just wiped out for nothing more than their religionin many cases, it was not even for practising the religion; it was purely for having a quarter Jewish blood in them.
	We face a danger today. In the past few weeks, I have been mortified and saddened to see daubings of slogans such as kill the Jews on synagogues in my constituency and at an underground station. Again, I commend my local council for having the daubings removed within minutes of being told that they were there and I commend members of the Muslim community who came to an event at which I spoke the other Sunday to condemn anybody, from any source, who does a thing such as this.
	Further to my intervention, I also believe that neo-Nazis will try to capitalise on the situation in Gaza and, under the mist of what is happening there, attempt to divide communities that for so long have worked together to try to achieve harmony. I still believe that my own area lives in harmony. We have harmonyplease God may that continue for years to come and may we never be divided by anybody or anything.

Lembit �pik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is only in relation to Israel that people seem to conflate religion with Government policy? Does he agree that whatever one's view of the Gaza situation we cannot tolerate using what has happened there as an excuse for anti-Semitism?

Lee Scott: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I do not totally agree with him. Of course we cannot tolerate anyone using any events anywhere in the world as an excuse for anti-Semitism, but anti-Semitism exists and we have to recognise that. Sometimes events elsewhere in the world are used as an excuse for latent anti-Semitism. Events elsewhere can affect what happens in Britain, but anti-Semitism is not acceptable in any shape or form, as he rightly says.
	The holocaust was the responsibility of an individual, or even a small group. Thousands of otherwise ordinary people colluded and co-operated in the murder of millions. We must never let such a horror happen again. I had words written down to say today, but they are irrelevant and meaningless, because they are only words. Every hon. Member, no matter what their political persuasion, must unite to sayas we are todaythat hatred and anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and homophobia are all unacceptable, and we will not stand for them. If we do not speak out, we should hang our heads in shame. Those who do not speak out should be ashamed of themselves. Let us pray that it never happens again.

Sadiq Khan: I am grateful to all the hon. Members who have spoken for their wise and insightful contributions to this debate. I expected nothing less, but it was gratifying to hear Members on both sides of the House agreeing on the importance of keeping alive the memory of the holocaust.
	It is worth putting on record the big turnout in the Chamber today. Some have had the chance to speak and others have intervened, but many more have sat and listened to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove) asked whether this should be an annual event. In my last three and a half years in this place, I have discovered that it operates on convention according to custom and practice. Given that the biggest two topical debates that we have had have been those on this issue, today and last year, I have little doubt that it will become a convention that we have such a debate in the week of 27 January every year.
	In the context of such a profound debate and in the time available, it is hard to respond to all the important points that have been made, so I shall confine myself to some that resonated especially strongly with me. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) made an outstanding speech in which he raised three specific questions. First, he asked when police services would start recording anti-Semitic incidents. I am pleased to tell him that I dealt with the Government's response to the report published by the all-party group on anti-Semitism, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), which recommended that change. We expect all police services to be able to record anti-Semitic incidents by April 2009 and I thank the hon. Gentleman for the vigour with which he has pursued that issue. The pressure that he has brought to bear will ensure that it happens by that deadline.
	The second issue that the hon. Gentleman raised was the reports in the press of the alleged boycotts of Holocaust memorial day. He would expect nothing less than for me to say that, first, I will not comment on reports in the press, and secondly, I have received no indication from the group that it has boycotted the event, and nor am I aware of ministerial colleagues being thus informed.
	The third point was about the engagement with groups, aside from the excellent engagement that Ministers have hadI do not mean that in a self-congratulatory, backslapping waywith key stakeholders in the past few weeks. That raises the interesting point of the inter-faith dialogue that needs to take place. Much such work is taking place, including the Inter Faith Network, the Government funding of regional faith forums and the Faith in Action grant programmes. We are looking at other ways in which Muslim-Jewish dialogue can take place in forums such as the Muslim Jewish Forum and the Coexistence Trust, which have a huge role to play. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will work with me to ensure that more work is done in that area.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon made an excellent speech, the key point of which was, Never again. However, to bring it forward to what is happening now with regard to standing up to hatred, I pay tribute to the work that she is doing locally with young people.
	The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) made an excellent and moving speech, bringing forward his personal experience through his parents along with contemporary examples of genocide, which I thought was really important, especially as we move forward.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks) talked about learning lessons from history and taking on those who propagate discriminatory views. That is very important, especially in the current climate.
	The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) gave very good reasons why he could not stay until the end of the debate. I was nervous when he complimented me and I glanced over at my Whip when he did so. I am even more nervous now when I pay tribute to him for his contribution. It was an excellent speech. I never thought that I would find an occasion to say something nice about himhe is a man who does not carry himself in a way that garners complimentsbut he talked about his age and experience, and his experience was a unique one from which we must learn. He talked about visiting Auschwitz and Birkenau and the impact that that it had on him and the two children. Like many colleagues, I visited Auschwitz and Birkenau last year, with two children sent from two schoolsGraveney school and Ernest Bevin college. It had a deep impact on me. It was moving, scary, traumatic and shocking.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) made a brilliant speech, in which she gave a moving account of a similar visit. She brought forward the relevance of the role that footballers have to play in 2009 as role models in striking against racism.
	The hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands) made a great speech, too. He talked about his early-day motion, which was signed by more than 136 MPs. The Chief Rabbi is a great man, and I am really pleased that the hon. Gentleman got the Chief Rabbi to go to a school in his patch. He talked about the impact of the trip on his young children, and, more importantly in the context of a wider audience outside the UK, about the roles that Germany, Poland and Russia have been playing and the differences in how they deal with the matter.
	The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Scott), who has become a friend of mine in the Public Bill Committee on the Business Rates Supplement Bill, made an excellent speech. Over the past three or four weeks, he and I have discussed with anxiety and concern how our respective communities were dealing with the incidents locally and domestically. He made an excellent speech about what has happened in his community and the huge amount of inter-faith work that is going on in his community.
	A key role of the day is education. The Holocaust Educational Trust is doing invaluable work, as is the Holocaust Centre in Nottinghamshire. The Holocaust Educational Trust today announced a new programme to teach primary school children about the lessons of the holocaust.
	The holocaust is not a Jewish problem. Nor is it a problem of Roma Gypsies, or Sinti, or of any of the other victims. Nor are the genocides in Darfur, Bosnia, Rwanda or Cambodia problems that belong to their victims. All religions and cultures need to be part of Holocaust memorial day. I was reminded that these problems face us all. Together, we can face up to such problems. Together, we can show solidarity and courage. I commend the House for the way in which we have conducted ourselves this afternoon. It is a tribute to how seriously we take the issue.
	 One and a half hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings, the motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 24A).

Armed Forces Personnel

Bob Ainsworth: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of armed forces personnel.
	We are fortunate to have the best armed forces in the world. What I see as I visit them around the world, including in Afghanistan just before Christmas, is always profoundly impressive and often humbling. Their extraordinary commitment and dedication make the world a better place. They fight terror on its front line to enable the rest of us to sleep more easily. That all comes at a price. We ask much of our armed forces and their service exacts a toll on them and their families and on veterans. For example, this year as the rest of us opened presents and ate turkey on Christmas day, our people in Afghanistan were fighting hard in Operation Sond Chara, near Lashkar Gah, the capital of Helmand province.
	In return for such service, the Government have an obligation to the armed forces. It is an obligation that I am determined that we fulfil. Equally, it is an obligation that should never be viewed as complete. We must continue to strive to do better, to respond to new challenges and to minimise the downsides associated with service life. I welcome the opportunity to set out what we have done and what we will continue to do in that regard. This is our commitment to the men and women of our armed forces.
	First and foremost, I know that the House will join me in paying tribute to all those armed forces personnel who have given their lives in the service of our country. They include the four people in Iraq and the 51 people in Afghanistan who made the ultimate sacrifice in 2008. Most recently, this year, we remember the five men who have been killed while patrolling in Helmand province. These deaths are utterly tragic and our thoughts and our deepest sympathies are with those families affected by such a terrible loss. Their loved ones did not die in vain. Our mission in Afghanistan is part of a coalition of some 40 nations. We are there helping to create the space in which Afghan capacity and institutions can develop. Eventually, those institutions will be mature enough to meet the needs of the Afghan people. It will take time, and we will need to be patient.
	Our mission in Afghanistan is sometimes presented as having little relevance to our country. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are in Afghanistan because it is in our national security interests to be there; otherwise it would once again become a failed state from which al-Qaeda or other terrorists could launch attacks on to our streets, either from the ungoverned space that would exist or under the protection of the Taliban. It is this unthinkable scenario that our armed forces are preventing through their courage and their sacrifice in Afghanistan.
	When I saw those remarkable men and women in Afghanistan just before Christmas, I was struck as always by their professionalism and sense of pride and commitment. I found them in good spirits despite the difficult and dangerous work and the losses that they had suffered. They recognised the importance of succeeding. They also see a different picture from that which is sometimes painted back herea picture where increasingly the Taliban are in retreat, first a year ago in Musa Qaleh, then in the south around Garmsir, and more recently around Nad Ali following the operations over Christmas and the new year.

Shailesh Vara: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way and I agree entirely with him about the outstanding service that our personnel are giving to us. He will agree with me though, I believe, that our military personnel are spending far more time now than even a few years ago in theatres of war. With that goes additional pressure on their families, their wives, husbands, partners and loved ones back in Britain. Of course, that has caused enormous difficulty in relationships. What is the Ministry of Defence doing to help family members cope with the stress and strain of having loved ones who are now far more likely to be in theatres of war than before?

Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we have been asking a lot of our armed forcesthat they have been operating above the planning assumptions for some time now, and no matter how people try to mitigate them, those stresses come out somewhere. They come out in breaches of harmony guidelines, and therefore create additional pressures on service life.
	There are plenty of support mechanisms. People in post are constantly monitored to try to assist, both at local unit levelregimental leveland more widely, at Army level or Royal Marine level or Navy level, to try to mitigate those effects. For instance, we brought in the decompression facility for people coming home from theatre to try to get them in a better place and give them advice on their way home after, in some cases, some very hard fighting and some intense operations. So we are constantly looking at how we can relieve that pressure, and as I shall explain later in my speech, we hope to improve our performance against harmony guidelines, because that in itself is so important.

Several hon. Members: rose

Bob Ainsworth: I give way to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell).

Menzies Campbell: As well as recognising the personal strains that can be imposed on families and individuals, does the Minister accept that the fact that our Army is running hot, as Sir Richard Dannatt described it some time ago, has a consequence in respect of people's willingness to go on serving, and in particular has an impact on the most important elements of the Armypersonnel at the level of sergeant and corporal, who at a particular stage of their development in the Army find that these strains prove intolerable for them and their families?

Bob Ainsworth: It can. That, in addition to the moral duty, is why we need to mitigate the effects as best we can. However, these are marvellous, impressive people who wish to serve their country and to develop the necessary skills to carry out operations. There has recently been an upturn in some of our recruiting potential, although we do not know whether this trend will continue with the economic problems. However, we must monitor the retention problem all the time because we need the skills of the type that the right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about at corporal and sergeant level. The point at which people reach maturity and are giving their most is when we need to try to hang on to them.

Bernard Jenkin: I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much indeed for giving way, although he might not thank me now. Would it not have been easier to achieve the harmony guidelines if the Government had not cut four battalions from the infantry in 2004? In hindsight, was not that a bad decision? When will the Government address the under-recruitment and lack of retention that leads to the Royal Marines, for example, being 9.8 per cent. under-strength? Seven battalions in the infantry are 20 per cent. undermanned: the Scots Guards, 4 Scots, 2 Fusiliers, 2 and 3 Yorks, 1 Mercian and 40 Commando. If the Government addressed those problems, the pressure on individual infantry servicemen, who, due to that pressure, the Government now say are in a pinch-point trade, would not be so great.

Bob Ainsworth: I know that the hon. Gentleman looks into these things and that he has talked to many people over a period of time. I also know his party's policy, although I do not know how it would pay for it. The policy changed recently from a position in which there was no guarantee of the spending to which we are committed, to one in which the Government's existing spending will be at least met.
	I have spoken to the Chief of the General Staff about the exact point that the hon. Gentleman makes. He does not want additional battalions, but he wants the thickness of his existing force to be recovered, because moving people around to fill gaps and mitigate the imposition on individuals causes additional stretch. His main priority is recruiting to get back the strength of the individual battalions, not the three additional battalions about which the Opposition talk, which is not something that he would want as head of the Army.

Mark Lancaster: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that one way of meeting harmony guidelines would be to minimise the number of armed forces personnel on operations? He accepts that when Tornado replaces Harrier, the uplift for ground personnel will be some 50 per cent. more than at the moment. However, will he reassure the House that the decision to replace Tornado with Harrier will not be made until Tornado meets its final operating capability and that that will be the driver, not the artificial internal planning date of 1 April 2009?

Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman has made much of this and has said things in the House that he ought to think seriously about. The need to replace the Harrier force is, in large part, because of harmony considerations. He does not need to go into great detail; he just needs to apply a bit of logic to think about that. There are three Harrier squadrons and we roll them round

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that the Minister is responding to an intervention, but before he goes too far down that road, I gently remind him that today's debate is about personnel, not equipment in detail.

Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the greatest respect, it will be impossible to conduct this debate if my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Milton Keynes (Mr. Lancaster) cannot raise the issue of the impact of the roulement between aircraft types on pilots and ground staff. If the Minister is denied the opportunity to respond to that point, I venture to suggest that the public, let alone the armed forces, will not understand why we cannot debate those matters in the round, as they go to the heart of dealing with armed forces personnel.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I very much understand that point of order, and it is difficult to separate equipment from the members of the armed forces who use it, but this is a debate on armed forces personnel. Clearly, lack of equipment, or delayed introduction of equipment, can have an impact on armed forces' morale. Passing reference to equipment is therefore in order, but extended discussion of particular projects is not. Defence equipment will be debated on another occasion.

Andrew Murrison: rose

Bernard Jenkin: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is no more that I can say on that point of order. I think that I have made myself perfectly clear.

Bernard Jenkin: On a separate point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If it is an entirely separate point of order, I will hear it, but I do not think that I could have made my point clearer.

Bernard Jenkin: On a separate point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not sure that the Leader of the House or the Government are aware of the points that you have made in your statement. Will you take all possible means to ensure that they understand the implications of what you have said, as we received advice from the Leader of the House, speaking at the Dispatch Box, on what we might discuss in this debate? Of course, you are the final arbiter of what we can discuss in any particular debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point of order and, in this instance, the Chair is in a rather difficult position because of what has been said on another occasion, and is on the record. As far as today's debate is concerned, I am simply setting out the position, and it must be adhered to.

Bob Ainsworth: I accept that ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope to be able to answer the hon. Member for North-East Milton Keynes (Mr. Lancaster) while sticking to your strictures by majoring on the issue of people and the potential stretch on them, and not on the issue of equipment. I shall certainly try to do that.

Andrew Murrison: Will the Minister give way?

Bob Ainsworth: Let me try to answer the intervention to which I was responding before I allow another intervention; I was trying to respond to the hon. Member for North-East Milton Keynes. He has made a series of allegations about the reasons for replacing Joint Force Harrier with the Tornado GR4. There are three squadrons of Harrier; if they stay in Afghanistan, they become very Afghanistan-centred, and suffer skill fade in some of the areas in which we need them to be capable. We are rolling them around, so that they effectively have two periods in, one period out. They have been there since 2003. We have seven squadrons of Tornado. We are therefore far better able to give the Tornado people the required harmony protection, ensure a sustainable deployment, and enable the Tornado squadrons to maintain the other skills that we need them to have. That will enable the Harrier force to rejuvenate fully after such a long deployment in Afghanistan. That makes eminent sense to me.
	The hon. Gentleman has been given information and has latched on to the fact that there was an internal deadline. He worried himself, and others, with the idea that we would deploy Tornado before it had the required capability, so that we could relieve that situation. We will not. We have to have internal deadlines to try to make things happen, to motivate Departments and to get things done in the most timely fashion. However, despite the harmony pressures on Joint Force Harrier, Ministers and the Chief of the Air Staff do not intend, and would not allow, the Tornado to go into theatre before it is up to spec and has full capability, in terms of protecting our troops on the ground. Having given the hon. Gentleman the assurance that Tornado will not go into theatre until then, I hope that we can finally put the matter to bed, and need not continue this debate any longer.

Lembit �pik: Recruitment has been mentioned a number of times. The Minister knows of my grave concern about deaths at Deepcut Army barracks in the past. In order to attract people to the Army, potential recruits have to be assured of their safety. Is there anything he can do to release the Devon and Cornwall police report into the Surrey police's treatment of the deaths? It is very important, very much in the public interest and very much in the interests of Army recruiting that we know what that report says and whether those individuals were murdered or not.

Bob Ainsworth: The issue has gone on for some time. My predecessor explained the situation in the House. The Dhali-Blake process was put in place as a result of the case to try to make certain that we were doing all we could to provide the necessary protection for very young people, sometimes vulnerable people, who join our armed forces. Since I have been in post, I have tried to make sure that all those processes are as thorough as they can be. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman whether a police report, which is not in my ownership or in my gift, can be released. I know that there are continuing concerns and that some of the parents find it difficult to accept the situation, but I firmly believe that we have done what needed to be done to trywe could never be certainto mitigate the situation exposed at Deepcut.

Patrick Mercer: The Minister and I have spoken about the manning crisisI use the phrase advisedlythat faces the Army in particular at present. I accept that recruiting figures look a lot better, but now that we are talking strictly about personnel matters, may I ask him to address the two terrible problems? One is the problem of infantry retention in training, where, as he knows, 35 per cent. of all those men who have been so carefully recruited consistently drop out of training. The other is the thorny problem, which is just beginning properly to emerge, of the number of long-term sick who continue to be held on strength, particularly in the combat arms. For instance, the Third Regiment, Royal Horse Artillery have nearly 22 per cent. of their personnel sick and undeployable.

Bob Ainsworth: As the hon. Gentleman knows, those issues tax the Army and the Royal Marines, who seek to deal with similar issues all the time. The Army is trying desperately to drive down what it calls, in its imitable way, the breakage rate in training. I have spoken to the hon. Gentleman outside the Chamber. I am more than happy to pick his brains, and the Army is more than happy to accept any contribution that he or anyone else can make to try to improve that situation. The offer remains open for an ongoing conversation.
	As the hon. Gentleman knows, many people are applying their brains to the problem. Nobody wants a 35 per cent. drop-out rate in the infantry, but people want hard, tough training that turns out recruits who are capable of surviving in the kind of environments in which we expect them to operate. It would do nobody any favours to soften that training in order to lower the drop-out rate. The result may well be personnel who are not properly equipped, and therefore casualties in theatre that could be avoided. Getting that balance right is enormously difficult. People are applying themselves. I know the hon. Gentleman thinks an awful lot about this issue, and I am more than happy to continue the conversation with him about whether he can make a contribution to it.

Bob Russell: The Minister mentions the justified criticism of the shortfall in some of the infantry battalions. Is he aware that the Royal Anglian regiment had a reception at the House of Commons this week, at which we were told that it is the best recruited infantry regiment in the British Army and is at full strength? Perhaps other regiments should look at what the Royal Anglians are doing, to see whether they can make up their shortfall in recruitment by following the Royal Anglians' example.

Bob Ainsworth: We should seek to spread best practice in the armed forces, as anywhere else. If the Royal Anglians are doing something from which people can learn, of course we need to see whether it is transferable to other units within the Army. I shall now make some progress, as I have allowed a lot of interventions.
	In the past year, we have contributed to a transformation of the situation on the ground in Iraq. Our people have brought the Iraqi forces very close to the point at which they will no longer need our help and support. The plan was to enable Iraqis to take responsibility for Iraq. The armed forces have achieved that plan, and I salute them for it. I fully appreciate their frustration, articulated by the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Chief of the General Staff, at commentators who ignore both the price and the progress, and who seek to belittle those efforts. The armed forces have succeeded in their mission and should be commended for doing so. Basra is a far better place now than when we found it, and the nation should be proud of our forces. Also important is the fact that as they leave Iraq, we will be able to reduce some of the stretch that we have had to deal with, and to improve our performance against the harmony guidelines.
	Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan rightly provide the focus. However, we should not forget that our men and women are constantly deployed in the UK and all around the worldproviding our nuclear deterrent, countering piracy or narcotics, or contributing to better futures in places such as Sierra Leone. All that places a heavy burden on our soldiers, sailors and airmen and their families, and we are doing our best to support them properly.
	The centrepiece is the unprecedented service personnel Command Paper. It sets out, for the first time ever, a range of commitments to the armed forces constituency from across the full range of Government services. To implement it, we are working closely with other Government Departments and in conjunction with the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish Executives. The Command Paper was drawn up in consultation with the chiefs of staff, the single services, the families federations and an external reference group including the service charities. I was delighted that the chief executive of the Royal British Legion joined the Chief of Defence Staff and me in launching the Command Paper in July. Indeed, the Royal British Legion claimed that the Command Paper means that the military covenant is now being honoured.
	The Command Paper includes more than 40 specific commitments and is based on two key principles: first, the removal of disadvantage associated with service life; and secondly, where appropriate and especially for sacrifice, entitlement to special treatment. It covers compensation, medical support, education, housing and much more. As the Prime Minister announced last month, we have doubled the maximum lump sum available to the most seriously injured personnel to a new limit of 570,000 for the most serious injuries. That will mean that an additional 10 million will be paid to injured personnel who have already been awarded lump-sum payments. The lump sums are in addition to a tax-free, guaranteed income for life. Taken as a whole, the package can amount, in the most serious cases, to in excess of 1.5 million over a lifetime.

James Gray: As the Minister has said, the doubling of the compensation package is broadly welcomed by the Royal British Legion and others, but will he comment on two aspects of it? First, in the old days, the onus was on the Department to pay the war pension or prove that it should not be paid. Now, that has been reversed: the claimant has to prove that he deserves the pension. Secondly, there are five and 10-year time limits on claiming the pension. Should that not be lifted on the grounds that someone might realise that he is due compensation only long after his service?

Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned an issue that has been raised with Ministers; the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), deals with it on an ongoing basis. We have a duty to ensure that payments are made appropriately. We have therefore said repeatedly that if people who are concerned about this can give us evidence that this is causing a genuine problem to people who should be paid compensation under the scheme, we will address it. I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), when he was Under-Secretary, saying that to veterans' charities, as well. We want to ensure that those who are genuinely in need of and entitled to this compensation get it. If there is evidence that this is causing them a problem, let us see it and we will act.

James Gray: rose

Bob Ainsworth: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman and covered his point, which he and others have raised before.
	Those who receive lump-sum compensations now have that payment disregarded from their means test for affordable housing. Our people and their families no longer slip down NHS waiting lists when obliged to move around the country; previous waiting time is now taken into account. Our wounded personnel require and deserve special support. The House will be aware of the world-class facilities at the defence medical rehabilitation centre at Headley Court. We have been working with the Help for Heroes charity to provide additional recreational facilities at Headley Court, and we are investing millions of pounds as our contribution to a joint project to provide a new gym and pool. This is in addition to the 24 million investment for upgraded wards, accommodation and prosthetic facilities. Moreover, the NHS in England has undertaken to ensure that the highest standard of prosthetic limbs provided to injured personnel is matched for life for veterans retiring from our armed services.
	Most of our very seriously injured personnel from operations are treated in the UK at University of Birmingham foundation trust hospital at Selly Oak. I was delighted that last year's all-party Defence Committee report concluded that Birmingham's
	clinical care for Servicemen and women seriously injured on operations is second to none.
	I visited Selly Oak in December and saw first-hand the remarkable people there, including patients and staff. I was most struck by my military assistant meeting an old friend who was coping marvellously with the awful and perhaps unique distinction of having been repatriated to Selly Oak, courtesy of enemy action, twice: a marvellous man, very brave, recovering from his injuries second time around, and very appreciative of the care that he was receiving.

Richard Benyon: I entirely agree with the Minister. Those of us who have visited Selly Oak have nothing but praise for the people who work there and for the treatment that our wounded troops receive. On my last visit there, I met a battalion welfare officer and the commanding officer's wife visiting wounded members of their unit, and it struck me that rear parties are the unsung heroes of operations. They told me about their experiences of having to inform wives and loved ones of serious injuries and deaths, and the horrendous job that that involves. That makes us understand that we have to be extremely grateful for the work that rear parties do and hope that they get all the support they may need in the difficult work they have to do.

Bob Ainsworth: I do not think that I can do better than that; the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I have repeatedly had the same experience whereby people are being supported from within the regimentthe appreciation is fantastic. At those times, the Army family or the regimental familythe RAF and the Navy are the samewrap their arms round people in pretty much most circumstances. We can do better, and we must look to do better, in ensuring that visiting officers are appropriately trained and given all the skills and back-up that they need to deal with families in a bereavement situation and suchlike. The rear parties do a truly excellent job.
	I mentioned Selly Oak, and we will not be complacent. We have an important stake in the new Birmingham hospital that is being built close by, which will open in 2010 and will include a new bespoke military ward. I should also tackle the myth that has arisen that there is a lack of priority NHS treatment for veterans whose ill health relates to their service. That is quite wrong. All primary care trusts have been issued with, and accepted, guidance regarding priority treatment for such veterans, and we are also ensuring that our peoplethe veteransare made aware of their individual entitlement.
	It is vital also that our people are not disadvantaged educationally. The children of our servicemen and women now enjoy priority access to state boarding schools, second only to children in care. Those with special educational needs benefit from guidance that has been given to all local authorities that they should ensure that service children experience no disadvantage in accessing the services that they require. Furthermore, from August this year, service leavers with more than six years' service will be entitled to study for an additional qualification up to degree level, free from tuition fees. The armed forces are sometimes characterised as a way for many people from disadvantaged backgrounds to improve themselves and make their way in life. With the provision that I have described, that will be the case more than ever.

Bob Russell: The Minister refers to education for the children of service personnel. Will he and his colleagues examine the Defence Committee's excellent report on that matter and relate it to what is happening in the real world? Notably, Essex county council decided this week to shut the very secondary school that military children go to, and to which the Committee went to get evidence.

Bob Ainsworth: I am not aware of the circumstances of that case, but I will of course examine the report. It has been studied, as are all the Committee's reports. We talk to people all the time about service educational needs, and one issue dealt with in the Command Paper was that of statemented children with special needs. When their families were obliged to move because of their service life, they had to start the statementing process all over again. We are ending that and ensuring that those statements are transferable. However, I do not know about the particular circumstances that the hon. Gentleman mentions.

Bernard Jenkin: May I inform the Minister that Essex county council carried out a wide-ranging consultation about the future of secondary education in Colchester? The resulting decision reflects a lot of opinions that were fed in, not least by those who wanted to keep education in the south of the town, near the garrison. There will be a vocational school there, with which the garrison will be invited to be involved. I am extremely grateful to the Minister's colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), for receiving Lord Hanningfield, the leader of the county council, to discuss how the military might be more involved with Colchester's schools than ever before, and particularly with the new vocational college. I fear that the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) is now rather isolated on this issue.

Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman has said what he has said, and I have given him the opportunity to do so.
	We recognise that one of the main concerns of service personnel and their families is the state of service accommodation. Although some of it is very good, much of it is not, as the result of decades of underfunding. Addressing that matter is a huge undertaking, but we are making progress. Since 2003, we have delivered about 30,000 new or improved single living accommodation units. A further 25,000 are planned by 2013, and 90 per cent. of service family accommodation in the UK is now in the top two standards, in marked contrast to the situation a few years ago. By the end of this financial year, no service family will have to live in the lowest standard of accommodation.
	We are also tackling home ownership. All military personnel in England now qualify as key workers and are eligible for affordable housing up to 12 months after leaving service. Work is also ongoing to explore the feasibility of a bespoke forces affordable homes scheme.
	To ensure that all the measures in the Command Paper are implemented, we have an external reference group, which includes representation from academia, the service families federations and key service charities. The group has a clear remitto hold the Government to account for their progress on implementing the commitments of the Command Paper. In line with this, 10 Departments and two devolved Administrations have appointed senior armed forces advocates to ensure that the needs of service personnel are fully reflected in developing and implementing policies.

James Gray: Will the Minister give way?

Bob Ainsworth: I am sorry, but I have given way a lot and taken time from others who want to speak.
	It would take far too long to describe the entire Command Paper or the many other strandspay awards, operational and deployed welfare packages and the procurement of urgent operational equipment, to mention a fewthat contribute to our personnel policy. Our policy seeks to fulfil our obligations to our armed forces. However, as I have said, it is a work in progress. It is too serious a business to be complacent about it. It will never be completeindeed, it should never be complete. We must constantly strive to do more, to do better, to detect emerging problems and to prevent regression from our achievements in recent years. The work needs to be done at every level and requires the support of many organisations. Only in that way will we truly discharge the debt we owe to the armed forces of our nation, and ensure that it continues to be discharged in the years ahead.

Andrew Murrison: I start by declaring my registered interest as an officer in the Royal Naval Reserve.
	I welcome the opportunity to debate our armed forces today. I pay tribute to the men and women who serve our country so well under the most difficult circumstances.
	I also pay tribute to our Defence MinistersI had not realised how hard they work, but the Library informs me that they responded to no less than 4,592 questions in the previous Session. We can debate the quality of some of the answers; nevertheless, that is a lot questions. The breakdown is even more interesting: 2,853 questions were asked by Conservatives and only 605 by the mighty Labour party. Even the Liberal Democrats did better than Labour Members. Given the interest from Labour Members, we should not be too surprised that the Government Whips could not muster more foot soldiers, even if quantity is offset by quality.
	I thank Ministers for adopting suggestions floated by the Leader of the Opposition's military covenant commission. Imitation is truly the sincerest form of flattery, and we welcome some of the familiar good ideas that appear in the service personnel Command Papertransferable waiting lists are a particular favourite of mine. My right hon. Friend's commission, which is chaired by Frederick Forsyth and staffed by a wide range of experts, including Simon Weston, has made an important contribution to the debate, as has the service personnel Command Paper. We owe a debt of gratitude to all involved, and the service community has welcomed both papers. I want to mention some of the issues that they raised.
	First, it is worth reminding ourselves of the provenance of today's debate. Before Christmas and on 13 January, the Leader of the House conceded that the subject matter for consideration today should be broad, as is traditional in such debates, subject, of course, to Mr. Speaker's discretion. Clearly, we can no more discuss armed forces personnel without mentioning equipment than we can discuss doctors and nurses without mentioning hospitals, or teachers without mentioning schools. The Leader of the House understood that full well.
	In December, our soldiers, sailors and airmen learned from a written statement of the revised in-service date for important bits of military hardware. Perhaps the Minister will now admit that the bumping of the naval programme, with all its defence posture, training, personnel and career implications, had nothing to do with the availability of aircraft, and everything to do with the Government's desperate financial situation.
	Apparently, we cannot use the word carrier, but suffice it to say that grey, flat-topped things displacing 65,000 tonnes take some bumping

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to make, but I hope that he will understand the ruling that I have already given. I have explained that this is not a simple matter, and the House has to have rules. There will be a further debate, specifically on equipment, in due course, and I ask him to bear in mind what I have said.

Andrew Murrison: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Heaven loves a trier, and I got further than I thought that I might.
	Given the statement of 11 December, the Minister's remarks today, and the fact that defence will not feature in the Government's economic stimulus, the men and women of our armed forces will be awaiting the conclusion of the Gray review and the Ministry of Defence's current planning round in March with trepidation.
	I should like to turn to the subject of combat stress. On 12 January, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), said that he was shocked and surprised that I had not understood what his Government had been doing for veterans with combat stress. I pay tribute to everything that has been done for people with post-traumatic stress disorder, but the Minister's apparent complacency shocked and surprised me. What did not surprise me so much was the British Medical Association's briefing note that was circulated in advance of today's debate, which featured combat stress prominently. The charity, Combat Stress, has rightly pointed out that the Minister's rebuttal relied on the research programme run by King's college, London. The work of Professor Wessely is very important, but the Minister should know that it is a long-term population study, and that it does not necessarily reflect the scale of mental distress sustained on intense operations. The Defence Analytical Services Agency, in its explanatory notes to the data on which I think the Minister was relying on 12 January, sounds the same cautionary note.
	I have two requests for the Minister that touch on mental health. First, will he look at the burden of proof and the time limit for claims under the armed forces compensation scheme? Unlike in the war pensions scheme, the burden of proof lies with the claimant, and claims are timed out after five years. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) rightly raised that point earlier. The Minister will understand that mental illness is often far more difficult to relate to a specific insult than physical injury, and that it can manifest itself many years after the provoking incident. It seems to me that the occupationally mentally ill will be relatively disadvantaged by the new arrangements, and I am sure that that is not the Minister's intention.

Kevan Jones: May I reiterate what we have said about this? We have asked for examples, following the points raised by service charities and others, but we have received none. If we get any, we are prepared to look at them, but, to date, we have had none.

Andrew Murrison: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention. He will know that, following the Falklands campaign, the average length of time for people coming forward with combat stress was 13 years, so we will not yet have the examples to which he has referred. However, the burden of proof will remain as it is. I ask him to look at the overarching arrangements again, so that we can perhaps avoid certain unintended consequences. I will leave it at that.  [ Interruption. ] The Minister says that he has not had any examples, but I would point him to the evidence from the Falklands and other conflicts, which suggests that combat stress can crop up many years after the provoking insult. If the Minister would like to come to the Dispatch Box and say that he will waive any out-of-time provision under his new arrangements, I would be very happy to take an intervention from him.

Kevan Jones: May I stress again to the hon. Gentleman that my predecessor, other Ministers and I have said to the service charities and others that, if there are examplesthe hon. Gentleman has mentioned the Falklandswe will look at those individual cases? We need to deal with actual cases, however, and I am prepared to do that. I keep repeating that to the service charities, but I have yet to see a single example.

Andrew Murrison: Of course the Falklands cases were dealt with under the war pension scheme; that is the point.

James Gray: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are currently 8,500 ex-service personnel in prison? In a written parliamentary answer dated 24 November 2008, the Ministry of Defence admitted that it did not know how many or whether any of those 8,500 ex-service personnel in prison were suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, abuse disorders or alcoholism. Surely any one of those 8,500 people released goodness knows when from prison might well fall into the category that my hon. Friend is describing.

Andrew Murrison: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Minister for the Armed Forces did not mention it in his opening remarks, but perhaps the Under-Secretary will do so in his summing up. The Home Office is conducting a study of the prison population with regard to mental illness among veterans, and I very much hope that some of the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire will be dealt with as part of that study. We look forward to its reporting later this year.
	Secondly on the issue of post-traumatic stress disorder and combat stress, will the Minister consider adopting another idea from the military covenant commissionthe piloting of active case finding so that psychological illness attributable to service in the armed forces can be discovered and people can receive the treatment they need in a timely fashion? I would be delighted if Ministers cracked on with that in pilot formif they do not, in due course we will.
	It is recognised that a period of decompression after leaving theatre contributes to good mental health and domestic harmony. The Minister mentioned decompression in Cyprus. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office gives its personnel a full two weeks; what is more, they can fly at taxpayers' expense to wherever they like for their decompression. Poor old Tommy Atkins gets a lesser deal and has to make do with 24 hours at Dhekelia barracks in Cyprus. I have to tell the Minister that a couple of tinnies, a medal and a pep talk from a general does not pass muster when set against two weeks on a beach in the Caribbean. What conclusions are the men and women of our armed forces to draw from the fact that some public servants appear to be far more equal than others?

Bob Russell: I do not want to go down the line of what civilians are doing, but when I met people during their 24 hours in Cyprus, I found that they not only welcomed it, but were anxious to get home sooner rather than later. The experience fed back to me is that 24 hours is just about right; two weeks is the last thing those people want.

Andrew Murrison: In fact, they do not always necessarily get the 24 hours. Perhaps the picture is mixed: some get rather longer, some less. The point that I am trying to make is that if we are providing two weeks' decompression for one group of people and 24 hours for another group, there is clearly a very big difference between them. They probably cannot both be right. It would be good to try to work out what is best practice in relation to decompression. One thing that we can agree on is that decompression is a welcome innovation. It appears particularly to improve domestic harmony among returnees, but we could perhaps look a little more into the question of precisely how it is played out.

Richard Benyon: Does my hon. Friend agree that increased time under decompression should come off deployment rather than off the other end? If soldiers returning from operations believe that that is their own time and that it is eating into the time that they can spend with their families, they will, of course, want less. If, however, our armed forces were not quite so overstretched, we could afford them more time in decompression and they would return to their families in a better frame of mind.

Andrew Murrison: That point is well made, and I shall deal with the issues surrounding it later in my contribution. It is worth reflecting on the studies that have rightly looked into incidents of domestic violence and general unhappiness among returnees. It appears from that work that decompression is a good thing. I have to say that I would be a little cautious about laying into decompression, but I entirely accept my hon. Friend's point.

James Arbuthnot: This is an extremely interesting subject, but should a distinction not be drawn between the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence? Members of the armed services who go in for decompression do so within their units. Because they are part of a group, that is part of the decompression. The same does not necessarily apply to Foreign Office personnel. There are very distinct types of decompression.

Andrew Murrison: That is a very good point. We could also cite members of the reserve forces, who are traditionally deployed as individuals or small units. I suppose that their position would be similar to that of people deployed by the Department for International Development or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
	During the summer, the Minister of State wrote to the Leader of the Opposition in, if I may say so, slightly hubristic terms, saying that our complaint that servicemen were spending part of their leave in departure lounges was wrong. I am sure that the Minister remembers that exchange of correspondence. It appears that the Chief of the Defence Staff understands the problem, even if the Minister does not. In October, he said:
	We need to make sure our people get sufficient rest and recuperation in the right placenot on a plane.
	I hope that the Minister has been adequately rebriefed by the Chief of the Defence Staff. Perhaps he could tell us what action he proposes to take. I hear him chuckling; perhaps I can take that as an indication that he has indeed been rebriefed.

Bob Ainsworth: I have never sought to deny that our armed forces are stretched. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman seriously thinks that we can completely change the order of rest and recuperation without imposing additional stretch on other people in theatre. That has not been said to me by the Chief of the Defence Staff or anyone else. As I have said, I do not deny that the forces are stretched, but given the hon. Gentleman's comments, one might believe that there is no such thing as post-operational tour leave. People are given leave after they return from operational theatre, and the hon. Gentleman ought to recognise that fact.

Andrew Murrison: I think that there is an element of confusion between post-operational tour leave and in-tour rest and recuperation. In that exchange of correspondence, we mostly debated in-tour rest and recuperation, and I think that the Chief of the Defence Staff was referring largely to that in his public remarks. I am sorry if the Chief of the Defence Staff does not speak privately to the Minister about his concerns and prefers to put his comments in the public domain, but he said what he said, and we happen to agree with him. While I absolutely accept that we do not live in an ideal world, overstretch is a reality, and I am afraid that that is a symptom of it.
	There is a general feeling among members of the armed forces that the Government are not necessarily always on their side. That was picked up by our military covenant commission. The creation of the post of Director of Service Prosecutions and the appointment of a candidate with no obvious military experience and unknown sympathies did not help to deal with that perception, and I hope the Minister will accept that perception is very important indeed.
	The Director of Service Prosecutions was hired last year and will assume his full duties in the autumn. We have discussed that delay in Committee, but perhaps the Minister will tell the House why there has been such a delay and what Mr. Houlder has been doing with his time. Hopefully he has been acquainting himself with the Army, Navy and Air Force, and attending to his single service duties.
	Over Christmas, separate bilateral status of forces agreements were signed by Baghdad and the United States, the United Kingdom and NATO. A further SOFA with Australia was refused by Canberra. We have it on the very best authority that the NATO and US SOFAs are remarkably similar and give better protection to troops, including the 15 UK troops operating as part of the small NATO contingent in Iraq, than the UK SOFA. The message received by our men and women is that their Government are less exercised about them than the US or, indeed, NATO.
	Ministers must act to ensure that our military does not suffer from the pervasive idea that personnel operating in the most difficult circumstances are backed by the Government only in so far as they provide a politically obliging backdrop. When things get tough, what are our people to think if Ministers' first instinct is publicly to blame officers in the field, who traditionally cannot answer back? Nobody should be in any doubt about the damage that that sort of thing does to the morale of our fighting forces and I sincerely hope that lessons have been learned.
	I recognise the national recognition study, in so far as it suggests the Government understand the need to inculcate the armed forces into the public imagination. The military covenant commission considered that in some depth and reflected the fact that the most important citizens as far as forming opinions are concerned are those currently at school. I wholeheartedly support the involvement of our armed forces in schools, as the Defence Committee appears to have done in its July 2008 report. I utterly condemn the suggestion by some teachers' representativeshowever veiledthat soldiers in schools are somehow sinister. The suggestion that these laudable public servants and first-rate role models should not be welcomed on to publicly owned and run premises is frankly obscene. It is no good Ministers singing the praises of the troops on the one hand and failing to condemn the prejudices of the left on the other.
	In that spirit, I hope that the Government will wish to emulate the UK GI Bill unveiled by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) in September, which draws from the troops-to-teachers experience in the States. It addresses two needs, namely the need to facilitate the employment of people leaving the armed forces and the need for positive role models to whom children will relate. The Minister will know that I have in the past decried the disappearance of school visits teams in favour of the e-learning tool Defence Dynamics. In my view, interacting with an e-learning tool is no substitute for interacting with real people. What review has the Minister undertaken of the e-learning tool, which had its first anniversary in September? Have the overwhelming majority of packages been left to gather e-dust?
	As the Minister suggested, nothing is more important to service families than the education of their children, yet authorities that have to cater for substantial numbers of service children find they are out of pocket because of the cost drivers that they bring. My own authority, Wiltshire, does the best it can to smooth that, but it is a challenge.

Bernard Jenkin: Before my hon. Friend leaves the question of troops to teachers, I commend the Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) and the thrust of our party's policy. May I convey my confidence that the MOD is taking up that challenge, and I hope that an example of that will be the co-operation that the MOD has already indicated that it will give to the new vocational college in Colchester?

Andrew Murrison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that, and I look forward to visiting Colchester at some point to see what is being established there. It sounds very imaginative.
	As the military covenant commission heard, results for Army children are disappointing and could be a great deal better. I commend the Government for starting to gather figures on service children for the first time in January last year, but I press the Minister to ensure that that data are used to inform the new schools funding formula.
	The biggest single issue impacting on personnel is overstretch. It is a bitter irony that some of our manning problems are being resolved by the recession. However, even the Chief of the Defence Staff, who is generally very helpful to Ministers, has pointed out that the current tempo cannot be sustained. Harmony guidelines are routinely breached and the continuous attitude survey makes it clear that separation and tour intervals are a major cause of dissatisfaction, along with the loss of skilled people. A recent report in the  British Medical Journal makes the link between long deployments and mental illness. The Royal Logistics Corps tour interval is just 15 months and the last tour interval of 1st Battalion the Grenadier Guards was just eight months before it went from Iraq to Afghanistan. It is not clear how the extension of tour intervals announced last week by CGS can be anything more than aspirational if the current tempo of operations is sustained.
	It is difficult to see how last week's announcement of restructuring and streamlining within the Army will address operational deficits caused by gaps in pinch point trades. In particular, it will still leave us short of submariners, helicopter aircrew, mechanics, force protection elements, gunners, firefighters, medics, intelligence staff, weapons system operators and so on. The trained strength of our reserves, without which current operations would be impossible, is appallingly low and on the slide. That will not be reversed by any amount of restructuring.
	We await the outcome of the Government's review of reserve forces in April, particularly in relation to their possible future role in the stabilisation and reconstruction tasks of the 21st century using civilian skills that arguably are under-utilised in the current force structurea point made in the military covenant commission's report. In the meantime, we are faced with a charismatic US President who is, no doubt, conducting a charm offensive with the Prime Minister aimed at securing a UK contribution to his post-election surge in Afghanistan. There has been no statement to date from Ministers, simply the suggestion from the Ministry of Defence that between 1,500 and 2,000 additional troops will be forthcoming. As ever in the planning of campaigns by this Government, it seems that a solution is offered before the problem is defined. I hope that Ministers will demand a rigorous business case before any additional UK troops are deployed and firm matching commitments from our allies. In particular, Ministers must secure the erasure of corrosive national caveats, both declared and undeclared.
	The contribution of Europeans to ISAF was bumped at the Bucharest summit by the Bush Administration, which wanted to focus on the accession of Georgia and Ukraine. That emboldened President Saakashvili and contributed to the crisis in South Ossetia. Does the Minister agree that the agenda for NATO's 60th-birthday summit in Strasbourg in April should not be blown off-course, and that it would be a catastrophe if those countries that have contributed disproportionately in treasure and braves to Afghanistan did not come away with a commitment from our allies to play their full and proper part in the joint venture?
	Although my attempts to get to Afghanistan have to date been frustrated, I have been to Iraq, both operationally and as part of a parliamentary acquaint visit, and I have to say that in-theatre equipment overall has improved from a low base in 2003. But there are two butsthere are always buts. Firstly, there is an enduring shortage of fixed-wing aircraft, helicoptersespecially Merlinsand armoured vehicles. The safety of our people is heavily dependent on them, and I hope the Minister will confirm that the draw-down in Iraq will result in the redeployment of airframes and appropriate vehicles to Afghanistan. I hope that we can expect an improved air bridge and the reversal of the trend towards longer trooping flight delays. It would be useful if the Minister could give a time frame for that and for the arrival in theatre of the extra hardware promised on 11 December.
	The second but is that if hardware is being delivered to the front line, training is not. Much of the new kit is highly sophisticated and commanders dislike being faced with it for the first time in operational settings and not on Salisbury plain. The Chief of the General Staff referred to that in his Institute for Public Policy Research speech last week.
	Training is increasingly squeezed as a result of the operational tempo. The Government are heavily committed to the defence training review, yet the business case is dependent on the realisation of surplus defence assets. Will the Minister comment on the extent to which the future of the St. Athan project is affected by the fall in estate values in the past 12 months? On the subject of falling estate values, will the Minister update the House on plans for the sale of Haslar? As he knows, we would review the use of the hospital so the timetable and the prospects of a sale are important to us, as well as to the armed forces and the people of Gosport.
	Nothing has gripped the public imagination more than the poor state of service accommodation, which the Minister discussed. A year ago, Chelsea barracks was sold and we were told that the receipts would be hypothecated to improve housing. Indeed, the Minister, Baroness Taylor, said the money would be invested fully in service accommodation. Three months later, in March, the then Minister, the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), told me that only about half the receipts would go on improving accommodation, and he gave me a spend-profile stretching out to 2011. Given the programme of economy-boosting public works that the Prime Minister has announced, why are the Government scaling back, rather than accelerating, their original plans for bringing service accommodation into the 21st century?
	I very much appreciated the opportunity yesterday to discuss the Coroners and Justice Bill with the Minister for the Armed Forces and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Bridget Prentice). We must do all that we can to ensure that the coronial process is as helpful as possible to the service community, and in particular the bereaved, but I am surprised at the apparent readiness of Ministers to criticise coroners' verdicts on the contribution made by inadequate kit to fatalities. From my own observation, I am convinced that military inquests are conducted rigorously and without favour. They are a learning opportunity for all who seek to reduce the risks run by our troops.
	I hope the Minister will join mealthough, perhaps, through gritted teethin paying tribute to the Wiltshire coroner, David Masters, who retires in April. He has done a great job, and his conduct of inquests has, from my own observation, been peerless, and I am confident that his work has improved the lot of service personnel.

Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman attempts, as he does in a number of areas, to paint a picture, which is far removed from reality, that the gap is yawning. I have repeatedly and genuinelyno gritted teeth are neededpraised the Wiltshire coroner, who has done a fabulous job. Yes, he has given us a hard time and made life uncomfortable for us from time to time, but from time to time we will fail to get to the bottom of issues with our internal inquiries and the independent coronial process is an important part of the process of learning the lessons. The Wiltshire coroner has been superb in that regard.

Andrew Murrison: I am sure that Mr. Masters will be pleased with the endorsement that the Minister has given from the Dispatch Box.
	May I make a plea for the continued independence of the coronial service in respect of military inquests? I believe that there is no difference across the House on the matter, and it is the firm wish of the service communitythe Minister and I discussed this yesterdaythat the process should be independent of the military. In a similar vein, I urge him to resist the hiring of counsel by the Ministry of Defence at public expense in what is meant to be a non-adversarial setting. Families want to feel that they are operating on a level playing field.
	I should like to finish on a positive note. The Royal British Legion poppy appeal in 2007 broke all records. I do not yet know the figures for 2008, but my own takings from rattling a tin outside Morrisons in Warminster as a member of the Warminster branch of the RBL were double last year's.  [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) questions whether I said Morrisonsit is Morrisons not Murrisons; I am sorry to say that there is no relation between us. The level of support for the excellent charity Help for Heroes has perhaps surprised but certainly delighted us all. Our armed forces can take comfort in the fact that despite their engagement in two conflicts that are unpopular with the general public they are held in high esteem both at home and abroad, and we should be immensely proud of them.

Linda Gilroy: I usually like to say that it is a pleasure to follow the previous speaker, but I find it a little difficult to say that on this occasion, because the previous contribution was less balanced than is normal in a speech from a Front-Bench spokesperson, which is a pity. I say that not least because if the hon. Gentleman had done his sums at the appropriate time, he would have found that he was supported by the same number of Members on the Conservative Back Benches as our Front-Bench team are supported by Labour Back Benchers today.  [Interruption.] I said that was the case at the time that he made his remarkwe are here in equal numbers.
	The hon. Gentleman also referred to questions. It is true that Labour Members, through their friendships with Ministers on the Front Benches, have many opportunities to ask questions informally, and Ministers are very generous in the visits that they pay to our constituencies, as well as to places represented by Conservative Members. I do not think that he was comparing like with like on that occasion. I could, of course, agree with his last remarks that he made, because we all want to pay tribute to the armed services.

Andrew Murrison: rose

Linda Gilroy: I shall give way once, for a short intervention, to someone from the Conservative Front-Bench team, who have a generous amount of time available to them.

Andrew Murrison: The hon. Lady is terribly gracious. What I could have done, of course, was calculate the number of questions asked per MP. If I was going to be unpleasant, as she suggested I was, that is precisely what I would have done. Perhaps she would like to do that mental calculation

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps we now ought to get on with discussing armed forces personnel. I call Linda Gilroy.

Linda Gilroy: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I take note of your advice.
	I want to pay tribute to the men and womenand to the families of those men and womenwho have been serving in Helmand province in very large numbers since last September under the leadership of Plymouth-based 3 Commando Brigade and Brigadier Gordon Messenger. It is very importantthis is something that we certainly share with those of us who stay for these debatesthat the general public and some of our colleagues should understand why British forces are in Afghanistan and see the connection between security abroad and security at home.
	That has never been more important than in this year, with the upcoming elections in Afghanistan. Recently, there was an 18-day assault on the Taliban by 3 Commando brigade in Operation Red Dagger. I commend, as I have so often done in the past, the reporting in our local newspaper by its defence correspondent, Tristan Nichols, who was embedded with 29 Commando and 42 Commando during the preparations for that remarkable operation. Red Dagger was named after the Plymouth-based 3 Commando brigade's shoulder flashes and helped to restore security in Lashkar Gah, the capital of Helmand province. Four vital insurgent bases were captured, meaning that ordinary Afghans can get on with their everyday lives and register for the presidential elections later this year. Brigadier Messenger said:
	This was a very successful operation that demonstrated the ability of the Task Force to surprise, overmatch, manoeuvre and influence over a huge area. Whilst our efforts have made a significant contribution to the overall Nad E'Ali security plan, it has not been without sacrifice, and we will forever remember the contribution of those who died.
	The British forces were standing shoulder to shoulder with Afghan colleagues and working to provide enduring security so that Governor Mangal can spread his governance across Helmand. They were also working, as we so often forget, with international forces. Danish and Estonian troops fought alongside the British and the Afghan national security forces. They fought in driving rain, slept in mud and were under constant risk of attack by an enemy who knew the ground. As they pushed forward, they cleared compounds and drove the Taliban before them.
	Modern weapons were much in evidence, but so were more traditional methods. Troops carried lightweight ladders to scale the walls of enemy compounds, while the Black Knights of Kilo Company at one stage found themselves completely surrounded in a terrifying firefight outside the town of Zarghun Kalay. The discovery of a tonne of narcotics, including 400 kg of opium with a street value of 2 million, showed how the Taliban are funded by the drugs trade. Lieutenant Colonel Charlie Stickland, commanding officer of 42 Commando Group Royal Marines, said:
	The next step we need to make is to find out who the elders are and start our influence in terms of why we're here and what we're seeking to do over the coming months.
	I was fortunate enough to go on an armed forces parliamentary scheme visit to Afghanistan just before this operation, and it was a rare chance to try to find answers to some of the questions that I and my constituents have asked about what the men and women from Plymouth who are deployed out there are doing on our behalf, how they feel about it, and how their kit and equipment are serving them and standing up to the harsh treatment that it gets in the high-tempo operations and different terrain and climate. I wanted to see for myself the medical services and find out whether they were as good as our Defence Committee report suggested last year. I had many other questions too numerous to mention.
	We spent our first day in Camp Bastion receiving some excellent briefings from Colonel Andy Maynard, who is Op Herrick 9's chief in charge of logistics. We also heard from Lieutenant Colonel Colin McClean who is in charge of equipment support and gave us a really good overview of the equipment at their disposal for force protection and projection. We got an idea of how that equipment was used, how it gets there and how it is kept in working order. People often make efforts way over the odds to keep it in use. Further detail was spelt out in other briefings. We had lots of chances to see and chat with the people delivering some of it, from Post Office workers and those dealing with the e-blueys to engineers keeping the planes, helicopters and vehicles maintained, and we found out information from how the very good food gets on the tables in the canteen to how the pay and admin issues are dealt with.
	A highlight of the visit had to be, of course, the visit to joint force medical group and R2E hospital with Wing Commander Roger Thompson. There are some 15 Plymouth medical personnel operating in Camp Bastion and a similar number elsewhere, including on the forward operating bases.
	Another highlight was undoubtedly the visit to 42 Commando Royal Marines HQ and to Camp Roberts. We talked with Lieutenant Colonel Charlie Stickland, who spoke with pace, passion and clarity about the recent ops, the role of his marines and the preparations that they were making for further operations. It was also good to see Lieutenant Colonel Neil Wilson and 29 Commando Regiment alongside 42.
	After nearly 40 years of experience in the battleground of politics, I take my hat off the young men, often in their early 20s, who can flex to the physical exploits of supermen, for which they are all so well known, and within very short order, take tea with the mullahs, discussing an amazing range of political, social and economic issues in a way that understands and is sensitive to Afghan culture. Stunning and awesome were words that I heard my colleagues use after our visit to Camp Roberts, where we learned more of how that was done through practical demonstration and kit and equipment displays.
	People seem appreciative of how the urgent operational requirement process has delivered better kit and equipment, with the Plymouth-manufactured Jackal being particularly welcome. The marines and commandos had a lot to say about how kit and equipment could be better still. They are standing up to some of the world's worst and most vicious bullies on our behalf and they certainly deserve to be taken note of when they raise issues about how these things can be done better and how kit and equipment can be designed to work better together.
	I was very pleased to get a letter responding to the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck) and I put to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), after we returned from that visit. We received a very detailed response about how attention is being paid to most of those points. I shall read it very closely, because I know that when the troops return from deployment they will challenge me to say whether the issues that they raised with us in the heat of deployment are being taken seriously. I look forward to continuing those conversations not through questions on the Order Paper but through detailed discussions with the Minister.
	The Afghan army is building up steadily. We met and talked to some of the Omletsthe military liaison and training officers from the UK and other international security assistance force forces. We did not manage to visit Camp Shobarak, and I suspect that it will be quite a long time before the Afghan army can act to provide security in the challenging circumstances in that part of Afghanistan, particularly in Helmand, but it is good to see and hear that the work to achieve that is under way.
	I know from Plymouth Herald reports and the work that I do on the Select Committee on Defence that the insurgency by the coalition of old and new Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorists has changed and is increasingly dangerous and challenging. There is an unholy mix of the original religious zealots with narco and other criminals. Some use the Taliban and al-Qaeda brand as a terrorist flag of convenience to hype up the fear factor of the bullying, thuggish behaviour that they inflict on the Afghan people. We are of course there to support the Afghan Government in bringing security to their people and communities. More importantly, some would say, considering the price that we are paying in blood and money, we are there in the interests of our own security, as the Minister said so clearly in his opening speech.
	We have been in Helmand as part of NATO/ISAF strategy to support the Afghan Government only since 2005. We often think that it is longer because there has been action in Afghanistan for longer, but it has only come into Helmand for a shorter time. Dealing with the issue there means less trouble on our doorstep. It is remarkable that the country is making some progress. It may be frustratingly slow and halting, but we forget the starting point at our peril: some of the deepest poverty and highest rates of infant mortality in the world, a space in which al-Qaeda camps trained in the region of 50,000some say 70,000 plusterrorists; the twisted roots of the 9/11 attack on the twin towers; and a state governed by religious zealots, the Taliban, who let all that happen. For the first time, I heard there of the idea of reducing the dependence on the poppy crop through a sensible, phased approach, which, given time, I thought might just work. Both doing that and creating a safe enough space for the elections this year need to come together to secure the right direction of travel. What we heard was measured and realistic, stated in a fair, low and sombre key, confident but not gung-ho and giving a strong impression that there is a very strong sense of pulling in the same directioncivilians as well as service personnel now, both with good morale.
	I kept coming across naval personnel in all sorts of roles, from cooks to drivers to administrative officers, some in their usual day job roles but so many doing quite different things from the usual. That is unsurprising, as this is the biggest land deployment of naval personnel for a long time. The visit gave me a strong sense of commitment to a really difficult task, for which our service personnel deserve to be better appreciated. As a community, we will certainly be doing that in Plymouth when they come back, soon. Some are already back, of course: medics tend to serve shorter but more frequent deployments. In April there will be a major eventa march pastso that we can all come together to mark our respect for what they have been doing. There will be quite a few events leading up to the first armed forces day, when we will be building on the remarkable range of events put together by the city council and the federation of service organisations.
	The understanding of what personnel are doing is important to their families, who are looking forward to the homecomingthe end of the deployment. Sadly, as the Minister said in his opening speech, some will not be returning. There has been a very high level not only of deaths but of casualties because of the intense nature of some of the fighting. I was particularly pleased with the progress he reported on the implementation of the service personnel Command Paper, particularly in the long-overdue changes to the compensation scheme.
	Some remarkable veterans have been returning from deployment via Plymouth. Some have been featured nationally. Ben McBean and Mark Ormrod come to mind. One lost two limbs, the other three, and yet when I rang the other day to inquire after one of them, I was told he had gone skiing. They are remarkable people, doing a remarkable job for us.
	I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion by focusing on one of the small things that can make a difference. We heard when overseas that small things matter, and that it is important that they are not neglected. The problem to which I wish to draw attention does not directly relate to the Afghan deployment; I heard about it from a senior serving officer who serves in my constituency. I have mentioned it in debate and in continuing correspondence, but I do not think that the Department properly appreciates the problem. It is being treated as an equality issuewhich it certainly is.
	The problem is that when Marines approach retirement age, they need to have two years' service ahead of them in order to apply for senior tri-service positions, so from their early 50s they cannot be considered for such positions. That cannot be in the interests of the armed forces, let alone fair. If it is truly impossible to bring the retirement ages into line earlierI know there is a long-term plan to do soperhaps the alternative is to bring some flexibility to the two-year rule. Obviously, junior positions in the Royal Marines lean towards young, active people, but I see no reason why among senior appointments a Royal Marine officer who is enthusiastic and experienced cannot be placed on an equal footing with his tri-service counterparts.
	The armed forces have been working incredibly hard on our behalf. As draw-down from Iraq takes place, the opportunity finally to implement programmes of recovery and recuperation, which need to be well planned, must be fully taken, not just to restore the harmony guidelines so that families feel under less pressure, but so that the training that makes our armed forces world class can be restored and the service personnel can remain world class today, tomorrow and in future years.

Nick Harvey: I begin, as ever, by paying tribute to the men and women of our armed services, who work tirelessly, bravely and professionally, often in difficult, demanding and increasingly dangerous circumstances. My thoughts are particularly with my constituents, the marines and engineers from Chivenor in North Devon, who are serving in Afghanistan and form part of the wider marine community that is represented by, among others, the hon. Members for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) and for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck), who are in the Chamber. I join others in expressing my deep condolences to the families of those who have lost their lives serving their country and my sincere sympathy to those who have returned injuredeither physically or mentally, or both.
	Our personnel are the lifeblood of our military capabilities, yet faced with low pay, long hours, sometimes substandard accommodation, insufficient albeit growing recognition, and the prospect of another 10 or perhaps 20 years in Afghanistan, they certainly do not have an easy time. Our priority in the House must be to ensure that the nation honours its duty of care to the armed forces and that they are backed up with the necessary resources, equipment and support to do their jobs. We must also ensure that the economic downturn does not water down support to the military, especially at a time of heightened threat. The Ministry of Defence's own credit crunch has already hit with delays in the carriers and armoured vehicle. We must not allow that to undermine our capabilities.
	We need to look further at how our armed forces can be even more flexible, efficient and effective as a fighting force. I welcomed some of the thinking sketched out last week by General Sir Richard Dannatt about the way in which he will go about that task. I must restate yet again the need for a new strategic defence review, the principal objective of which should be to assess afresh where to strike the balance between, on the one hand, aligning ourselves for the wars of today and the medium-term challenges that we can anticipate, and acting as a force for good throughout the world and, on the other hand, sustaining adequate capability to provide the insurance that we need to defend ourselves in any future state-on-state warfare.
	As we have observed many times before, the key problem is overstretch, which continues to have a severe impact. The extent to which experienced personnel leave the armed forces prematurely remains alarming, and recruitment can plug only part of the gap. Our recruitment has been kept going only by the twentyfold increase over a decade in the number of recruits from Commonwealth countries. Many people are leaving as a result of overstretch, low pay, bad housing and the inevitable strain that too many extended periods away from home places on personal and family life. At a time of economic downturn, perhaps one silver lining might be a growth in armed forces recruitment, with a diminished readiness to leave early and take chances on the job market.
	What incentives do we offer new recruits? Those joining in the lower ranks find that their pay is less than that of firemen, policemen and bus or tube drivers. While serving long hours on the front line, they will not get even the minimum wage for a career serving their country and putting their lives on the line. It was pointed out a few months ago that even traffic wardens are paid better than young soldiers, and I heard a caller to a radio phone-in suggest that the solution was to send all of them to the front line. As General Dannatt observed recently, too many soldiers struggle to support their family on the finances available to them. Surely the best Army in the world should not be among the worst paid.
	The issue of mental health has often been discussed in this House, and I am pleased to note that awareness of, and attitudes towards, mental health problems have improved markedly, but the psychological toll of our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan means that mental health services will be busy for many years to come. I acknowledge the progress made in improving services, but much more remains to be done. A recent study of the consumption of alcohol and binge drinking in the armed forces revealed a significant increase in alcohol consumption among those who had been deployed, those who had feared that they might be killed and those who experienced hostility from civilians. There are, and always will be, disturbing and difficult experiences in conflict zones, and it is important to tackle drug and alcohol issues alongside mental health issues.
	We Liberal Democrats have persistently raised the issue of accommodation. The Ministry of Defence has recognised that there is a problem, and it has a programme of improvements, but it has an inclination to overstate what it is doing by cheerfully adding together the rent that it pays to Annington Homes, the cost of routine maintenance and what it will spend on capital improvements. It likes to give the impression that the total is all being spent on capital improvements. The Department is spending money on capital improvements, and there is some progress, but at the current rate of progress, not all accommodation will be of the top standard as soon as it needs to be.
	Only last year, the Public Accounts Committee noted that many personnel leaving the service cited the appalling state of the accommodation as a factor that led them to take their decision. More than 9,000 MOD properties were left vacant last year, more than a quarter of which had been left unused for between one and five years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) has pointed out on many an occasion, the Ministry of Defence has therefore spent millions of pounds on renting unoccupied housing, with an average annual bill for each property of 3,600.
	It is a very different story for the top brass. Although the Ministry of Defence was paying Annington rent for 648 empty homes in London, it still went to the private rental market and paid 16.6 million a year to rent 1,100 private properties. On just 11 private homes in London, the Ministry spent 290,000 in rent, with the most expensive coming in at 4,200 a month. It is perfectly clear that there is still something very wrong and that there is a long way to go to put right the issues to do with forces accommodation.
	I very much welcome the doubling of the lump sum payment in the armed forces compensation scheme to 570,000 for the most seriously injured. Although that still imposes a limit that would not really apply in civilian walks of life, I acknowledge that it could make a huge difference to those affected and their families. However, points have been raised about two outstanding issues. The burden of proof that the injury was caused by service still lies with the claimant. It should be returned to the Secretary of State, which is where it was under the war pension scheme.
	On the issue of time limits for claimants, I listened closely to the exchange between the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), and the Conservative Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison). If I understood the Minister correctly, he said that if people came forward with specific cases that were outside the time limits that have been laid down, the Government would be prepared to consider them on an individual basis.

Kevan Jones: No.

Nick Harvey: It seems that I have not understood correctly. Perhaps the Minister would like to clear the matter up. I thought that he was saying that if there were specific examples, the Government would retain an open mind towards them, but perhaps I misunderstood.

Kevan Jones: On the burden of proof issue, I was on the Committee that considered the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill, along with the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth). The issue was raised on numerous occasions at the time. What I was saying, and what the Department continues to say, is: bring forward examples where people have lost out because of the burden of proof issue. There has been none so far. On individual cases and time limits, of course they are always looked at on an individual basis.

Nick Harvey: I am disappointed by the earlier part of the Minister's reply, and intrigued by the latter part. If the MOD is prepared to look on a case-by-case basis at cases that lie outwith the time limits, one wonders what the purpose of the time limits is. Nevertheless, that seems to indicate a degree of flexibility, which it would be churlish not to welcome.
	That leads me to the subject of nuclear test veterans whose case is going through the courts to see whether they can be given a hearing to claim compensation. I hope they succeed in that action. What kind of message does it send to our current personnel when our Government close their ears to a group of veterans who have suffered cancers, fertility problems and skin defects as a result of their exposure to nuclear bomb tests? Some of those men and their families have fought for years and virtually every other country has recognised and compensated their test veterans, so why does our Ministry try to hide from its moral obligations by using a technical argument about timing as its device for doing so?
	We have long campaigned long for the rights of Gurkhas. Everyone is the House recognises the unwavering support that the Gurkhas have given our country in conflicts overseas. Military personnel to whom I have spoken rave about their bravery and skill. They have fought for a country that was not their own and, in return, they have asked for little but the right for them and their families to remain here. However, despite the fact that the Government have faced up to Britain's moral duty for those serving after 1997, those predating this utterly arbitrary date but whose circumstances are the same also have to go to the courts to seek justice. I hope very much that they, too, will succeed.
	There are other issues where progress has been made but more is needed, such as help for those leaving the forces to get their foot on to the job and housing ladders, and making a practical reality of the principle of priority treatment in the NHS. I welcome the Minister's announcement that letters have been sent to all primary care trust chief executives, but there is a considerable gap between writing to the primary care trust chief executives and priority being given in practice. I welcome that as one step forward, as it is not all that long since I had a reply from an NHS chief executive asking what I meant by NHS priority and saying that they had never heard of it. Perhaps even writing to chief executives is a modest step in the right direction. We also need to help forces families cope with the effects of moving home regularly. I welcome some of what the Minister said about that, but again, time will tell whether we have gone far enough.
	Our armed forces play a vital role in conflict theatres, peacekeeping and humanitarian work around the world, but if we are to maintain top level capability, we must go further in reinforcing the nation's duty of care to them. We must not allow the economic crisis to have a damaging impact on them. Tinkering around the edges will neither solve the recruitment problem, nor make any real difference to retention. We need a new approach to our armed forces, a new strategic defence review and assessment of the context in which they work, and a renewed commitment to delivering the care and support so urgently needed by our service personnel and their families.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are, as is evident, a small number of Members, all of whom are interested in speaking in the debate. We have about an hour, so perhaps Members will watch the clock in order to help their colleagues.

Neil Gerrard: I shall be brief, as there are just two topics on which I shall speak. The first is what happens to people as they leave the armed forces and afterwards. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) raised the issue of ex-service personnel in prisons and what can be done by the Ministry of Defence and other Government Departments to help.
	Some good work has been done with people who are leaving the armed forces. Recent research examined homelessness in London and people living on the streets. The study was funded by the Ministry of Defence and the Royal British Legion. It found that the popular picture of the homeless squaddie was not matched by what is happening now. Ten years ago, about 22 per cent. of people living on the London streets were ex-services personnel, but this study found that just 6 per cent. were. That is a significant improvement. It does not mean that the numbers are not still significantthey are. One of the things that came out clearly was that a higher proportion of the ex-services people who were on the streets had alcohol problems, or problems of physical or mental health, than did the general homeless population. Furthermore, some were less inclined to seek help; perhaps there was a view that there was something shameful about being in such a position. They did not necessarily seek help.
	What was encouraging was that those homeless ex-services personnel who had left the armed forces relatively recently were much more aware of the help available and of where they could go to get it. It seems that the Ministry of Defence resettlement budget has had a positive effect on those ex-services personnel who become homeless.

Alison Seabeck: Recently I was in Afghanistan as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. We talked to a number of the front-line troops and saw that they were recording incidents that could cause them mental stress. They felt that doing so would help them to balance their lives when they came out and to understand the nature of their problems. They also had advice on where to go and who to talk to.

Neil Gerrard: That was a useful intervention. It makes the point that things have improved, although there are still problems. One problem among the homeless people interviewed was that some of those who had not been on active service in a war zone did not really regard themselves as veterans; they somehow thought that they might not be as entitled to the same help as someone who had.
	The question of ex-services personnel in prison was mentioned earlier. The National Association of Probation Officers did some work on the issue fairly recently. It got case histories from about 22 probation areas, and they showed a significant problem. The prison in-reach projectagain, sponsored by the Ministry of Defenceis doing a scoping survey at the moment. In one small pilot study in Dartmoor, more than 16 per cent. of the people surveyed had undertaken military service, although other surveys have come up with rather lower figures.
	The NAPO survey made it clear that in all those probation areas, probation officers were reporting that they were dealing with ex-services personnel. Furthermore, in their view, the majority of such people with whom they were dealing had suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and there had been no real attempt to identify the problemeither when those people were discharged from the services or when they were arrested and charged. The other point that came out clearly has already been referred to: a very high proportion of those people had been involved in heavy drinking or drug taking at some point.
	Some good little projects are starting. Staff at Everthorpe prison have put together a pack that deals specifically with ex-forces personnel, and work on Army welfare is going on in North Yorkshire. There are examples of good practice, but there are also gaps in our knowledge: we know that the problem is there, but we do not know its precise scale. I hope that the Minister acceptsI think that the Ministry of Defence acceptsthat we need to look into this problem and put more information together. If there have been successes in dealing with people becoming homeless, we should look at how that can be transferred into helping them not to end up in prison.
	My second point, on which I may not get the same support from the Minister that I hope to get on my first, concerns recruitment, specifically the ages at which people are recruited. I would not dispute that a career in the armed forces can offer young people real opportunities, and I have no problems with young people seeing soldiers; the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) talked about soldiers going into schools. However, we must face the fact that many non-officer recruits into the Army are people with relatively low educational attainment living in poor communities and that a significant number go into the Army as a last resort. I see the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), shaking his head, but a survey carried out in 2004 suggested that up to40 per cent. of Army recruits were doing it because they could not find anything else that they wanted to do.
	Irrespective of that, about a quarter of all recruits in 2007 and 2008 were aged under 18. We are unusual among members of the European Union in recruiting people into the Army at the age of 16; most countries do not do that. Yet when we recruit people under the age of 18, the regulations mean that they are signing up for a longer period than someone who joins at the age of 18. We have a ruleit had been lifted and was then brought back in regulations that came into force in August last yearthat requires young people to serve for a minimum of four years beyond their 18th birthday. Somebody who signs up when they are 18 could sign up for four years, but if they sign up at 16 or 17, they are signing up to serve for four years beyond their 18th birthday. I wonder how that will sit with our debates on the Equality Bill later in this Session. In the first six months, there is an absolute right to discharge whereby someone who is unhappy can choose to leave voluntarily without a problem, but after that it is discretionary. We should consider moving to an age limit of 17, or at least enabling people to leave at any point before they are 18.

James Arbuthnot: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who made an extremely congenial neighbour when I was Member of Parliament for Wanstead and Woodford. He made some valid points. I will sit down before 10 minutes to 5 in order to give other right hon. and hon. Members the opportunity to speak, because I get a fair crack of the whip in these debates.
	I have to start by saying an enormous thank you to our armed forces, who show such qualities of selflessness, resilience, good judgment and humour. In the past, I have made the mistake of saying that they do what they do for us. If one suggested to any member of the armed services that they might be doing it for politicians, one would be met with an immediate raspberry. In fact, they are doing it for each other. They are fighting for their mates; that is an important part of their ethos. We are the beneficiaries of that, and we must do our utmost to preserve the coherence of their units, which give them their strength and their abilities, which are unmatched anywhere in the world.
	That leads me on to the suggestion that trickle posting may have an inherently destabilising effect on our armed forces. I hope that the Ministry of Defence will bear very much in mind the binding nature of the groups within our armed forces.
	The words that we say in praise of our armed forces must be backed up by policies on pay, family support, medical care, basing and so on. Pay has improved, although there is a concern about the joint personnel administration system, which has caused the MOD's accounts for this year to be qualified. The qualification is serious, as the permanent secretary to the MOD admitted to the Defence Committee. The JPA was raised with the Committee when we went to Iraq, and last year when we went to Afghanistan. It is an electronic system that is produced by EDS, a good and thoroughly worthwhile company in my constituency. It has been trying to produce an electronic system to take the place of a paper system that had become unwieldy and was wrong in many respects. We are often too quick to blame EDS for mistakes that were inherent in the system.
	Nevertheless, the MOD may have been a bit too quick to reduce the number of personnel officers who were there to help the forces through the calculation of their allowances and pay. I hope that the Ministry will consider that matter and also whether the system is appropriate given that, as I understand it, it is a pull system. In other words, if someone does not know what allowances they are entitled to, the system will not prompt them to claim them. That is not acceptable. In November, the permanent secretary came before the Committee and we expressed our dissatisfaction with some of the serious glitches that had appeared in the system. We will report on that soon.
	Another important matter for armed forces personnel is basing. The MOD is constantly going through reviews of where bases ought to be. Recently in Hampshire, Portsmouth fortunately fought off the threat of closure. However, RAF Odiham, in my constituency, is still ploughing through Project Belvedere. Only a few years ago, a study concluded that it would not be cost-effective to move the Chinooks away from RAF Odiham. We in north-east Hampshire like the Chinooks. We are proud of what they do in Afghanistan and astonished by what they manage to achieve in Sierra Leone.
	The town of Odiham has made a significant financial contribution to the families of those who have served their country abroad in recent months, and last summer the people there held a parade and party for the wonderful men and women of RAF Odiham. Returning to their base, they were reported to me as walking on air. Well, they are the RAF. We are not just proud of the Chinooks, we actually like them. We like the noise that they make and are used to it, and I suggest that that would not be true if they were moved elsewhere in the country.

James Gray: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

James Arbuthnot: I will give way on this point, but I shall claim an extra minute.

James Gray: I understand my right hon. Friend's point, and I intervene briefly to say that if the worst were to happen from his point of view, and under Project Belvedere the Chinooks were to move to RAF Lyneham in my constituency, we would certainly welcome them. I was encouraged by what he said about noise, and from our point of view I very much hope that that is what will happen.

James Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend will understand if I say that I hope that will not happen. By and large, my constituents moved to their houses well after RAF Odiham was set upit was opened in 1937 by, interestingly, the chief of the Luftwaffe, General Erhard Milch. That may be why I get no more than one complaint a year from my constituents. I suspect that the same would not be true if the Chinooks descended upon my hon. Friend's constituency.
	The cost of reproviding the services and facilities that work well and are well established in Odiham scuppered the previous attempt to move the Chinooks. That reason remains valid. Please will the Minister acknowledge that constantly repeated reviews of such matters are a distraction to the armed forces, upsetting to local communities and an unhelpful waste of the Ministry's money, which, as we all know, is scarce?
	I will finish in one minute by referring to one or two of the Select Committee's current inquiries. We are holding inquiries into: defence equipment; the MoD's annual report and accounts; the defence support group; UK national security and resilience; recuperation; Russia; the Service Complaints Commissioner; helicopters; and the comprehensive approach. In view of all that, I pay particular tribute to the Select Committee staff, who bear the burden so knowledgeably. We are extremely grateful to them.

Joan Humble: It is a privilege to speak in this debate and to follow the considered contribution of the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot).
	My right hon. Friend the Minister rightly reminded us of the debt we owe those who serve in our armed forces and of their excellent work. I have met men and women stationed at Weeton barracks near Blackpool and learned of their experiences in Sierra Leone. I have spoken to soldiers at Fulwood barracks in Preston and members of the Territorial Army at Kimberley barracks in Preston, who have been to Iraq and Afghanistan. They are proud of what they do, and we should be proud of them. That is why I am so pleased that we are holding this debate.
	I applaud the Government's commitment to members of the armed services, service families and veterans, which has transformed the debate. The Government have created structures that reflect and, year after year, build on our support for the services.
	Today is my first opportunity to congratulate formally the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), on his appointment as Minister with responsibility for veterans. I am being nice to him now because I will ask him some detailed questions later. He brings with him a well-deserved reputation for a no-nonsense approach to good governance of the armed services. On the Defence Committee, he pursued duty of care issues with determination. I am sure that he acknowledges the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), who spearheaded the cause of fair and proper treatment of veterans.
	As chair of the all-party group on Army deaths, I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary and his predecessor. They have dealt with bereaved families with courtesy and respect, whether the deaths occurred in barracks at Deepcut, Catterick or overseas. My hon. Friend has also attended meetings of the new all-party group on veterans, of which I am an officer, and has spoken again to the people who attended about the importance of making progress on veterans' issues.
	Since we last considered such issues in detail, the Command Paper on support for service personnel, families and veterans has begun to produce change. We have a framework for better recognition of the armed forces and opportunities to show support. The national armed forces memorial and national armed forces day on 27 June supplement remembrance events in November. We have begun to move to a new system of military justice under the Armed Forces Act 2006. The appointment of a Service Complaints Commissioner is an important step towards independent oversight. The conduct of service personnel and the quality of their leadership are important to the reputation of the armed services. Today's armed forces must be effective in war and in peace.
	I want to concentrate my remaining remarks on the theme of independent oversight, but first, I would like to record my appreciation of Dr. Susan Atkins, the first Service Complaints Commissioner. She has met the all-party parliamentary group on Army deaths twice, and she has listened attentively to the concerns of bereaved Army families. Within her powers, she has done what she could, and I look forward to reading and discussing her first annual report. However, her powers are not as extensive as I, or the Defence Select Committee in its reports on duty of care, wanted them to be. Nor are they as extensive as bereaved families want them to be.
	I therefore want to ask the Minister to look into the restriction on the power of the Service Complaints Commissioner to receive a complaint relating to the death of a soldier or its subsequent investigation. The commissioner has been advised that complaints relating to these matters are ultra vires on the ground that the deceased is no longer a serving member of the armed services. When we discussed this matter during the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2006, I do not think any of us understood that that would be an issue, and I do not believe that that was the intention of Parliament. May I ask the Minister to address the problem?
	I want to say a few words about the press. Although there is seen to be a lack of effective oversight, our media get actively involved. Newspapers produce a regular commentary on matters such as the ill-treatment of trainees or detainees, shortages of equipment, the hardships of veterans and the failure to provide medical care for casualties of war. I should also like to mention The Undercover Soldier, which was broadcast in September by the BBC. The documentary focused on disturbing allegations of ill-treatment of soldiers in training, and of casual racism at Catterick barracks. Those allegations have led to a military police investigation. I know that in recent years there have been many improvements in how the staff in our training establishments behave, and in the kind of training that is offered to young trainees. Sadly, however, we are still seeing allegations such as those shown in the The Undercover Soldier programme. We are also seeing the theatre getting involved. I will not list all the plays that have been produced about the deaths at Deepcut, but many of them have won theatrical prizes for the way they have portrayed what were tragedies for those young people and are still tragedies for the families involved.
	I shall ask several detailed questions about structures for independent oversight. First, the Adjutant-General established a number of independent advisory panels in 2006, in order
	to exchange information, provide feedback and assist in identifying possible areas for improvement across the training estate.
	Such a proposal stopped well short of that advocated by the Deepcut  Beyond families group for the establishment of a lay visitors' scheme, in which Army mums and dads could enter training establishments and see the behaviour of the trainees. What assessment has the Minister made of the independent advisory panel scheme? How many panels have been established? Who sees their reports? Service families complain to me that external involvement in the panels is restricted to what they call local bigwigs. What outreach will the Minister undertake to involve ordinary families, particularly those bereaved by deaths in barracks?
	Secondly, there has been much debate on the issue of an armed forces federation. Other countries have self-organised membership groups to represent the interests of serving soldiers and their families. I have been told by senior Army officers that such an arrangement would undermine the chain of command. That seems to be their regular response to many of the issues that bereaved families, and the families of serving soldiers, raise. Will my hon. Friend look into whether there is a way of pursuing such a proposal?
	Thirdly, in response to public concerns over the deaths in Deepcut barracks, the Secretary of State asked the adult learning inspectorate to oversee the regime and quality of Army training. That role has subsequently passed to Ofsted. What plans does the Minister have to provide for the continued monitoring of training? Will he consider tasking such a body to undertake studies in areas such as race awareness?
	Fourthly, the Deepcut  Beyond families group has suggested the establishment of an office of Her Majesty's inspector of the armed forcesalong the same lines as Her Majesty's inspectors for the police and the prison services. Such an inspector would be outside the chain of command and would be charged with a duty to report directly to Parliament. He could look into the sorts of issues raised by service families and by the families of soldiers who have died. Will the Minister give further consideration to that proposal?
	Fifthly, we come to whistleblowers. In workplaces up and down the country, employees routinely do a public service by disclosing workplace malpractice, and the Government have put in place laws to encourage whistleblowers in the public interest so that whistleblowers know they cannot be victimised if they raise issues of malpractice in the workplace. Again, the military traditionally argues that whistleblowers undermine the chain of command. I am not so nave as to deny that comradeship, obeying orders and having strict discipline are crucial in the Army, but, sadly, we do have occasional incidentsthey are not widespreadof things happening that should not happen. With modern information and communications technology, anyone can use a mobile phone to take photos and then put them on a website. Will the Minister look further into protecting genuine whistleblowers who have real concerns? I would expect him to act against those behaving in either a frivolous or dangerous way, but if the cases are genuine, will he look into them further?
	Sixthly, on human rights, it is important that soldiers are aware of their right to protection against bullying and ill-treatment. In the context of peacekeeping missions overseas, it is also important that they have an understanding of the areas they are going to. At my request, the Minister placed the curriculum and background notes for such training in the Library of the House, but I have to say that they are pretty meagre, with just two pages and only half a page of writing respectively. Will he think about entering into a dialogue with the Equality and Human Rights Commission to review these teaching materials?
	SeventhlyI shall be brief, as I spoke in the debate on the Coroners and Justice Bill earlier this weekanother important issue not raised so far today is that of testimony given at services inquiries. It may not be admissible before a coroner's inquest and may not be disclosed to the jury. Will the Minister look into that issue?
	We need to be reassured that our armed forces personnel have opportunities to make complaints and get them addressed if they are genuine. We also need to ensure that we have independent oversight of whatever system of complaints is put into effect. That will reassure existing armed forces personnel while also reassuring their families. I hope that it will also lead to improved recruitment and an improved career for our armed forces personnel.

Ann Winterton: At the beginning of my brief contribution to the debate, I express my respect and admiration for the service and commitment of our armed forces and for their fortitude and that of their families. I also express my sympathy for loss of life and for those who have been wounded in mind or body.
	Recruitment, retention and morale have already been raised, but I want to deal with an issue that has not been mentioned thus far in the debate. In this day and age of fast communication and almost instant media coverage, most people like to receive praise, encouragement and recognition for the duties that they undertakein other words, for a job well doneand none more so than our troops on the front line. They have access to either internet or satellite connections, andjust like everyone elsethey like to see their efforts reported by the media, or even promoted as achievements of which everyone in the United Kingdom can feel proud.
	A year ago last December, I asked the Prime Minister a question about the lack of MOD media coverage following the taking of Musa Qala in Afghanistan a few days earlier. The answer that I received disappointed me, so I applied for and gained a Westminster Hall debate entitled Military Operations (Information). During that debate, which took place exactly a year ago on 29 January 2008, I made the case that the MOD had completely failed to give clear leadership and to inspire others in its coverage of the military operations leading up to the taking of Musa Qala. As a result, family, friends and the British public were being kept in the dark, and the MOD had lost a wonderful opportunity to promote a great military success story.
	We must face up to the fact that sections of the public are somewhat disenchanted with operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, so it is vitally important to win the information war and change minds here at home in the United Kingdom. The starting point in that process is gaining an understanding of the issues and difficulties faced in particular operations, thereby gaining an appreciation of the tremendous successes achieved by these brave and intrepid young soldiers.
	Perhaps a more serious charge is that the lack of media reporting of young men and women putting their lives on the line in an extremely hostile environment might undermine the morale of our troops. Surely their efforts should have been fully recognised in the media. When we compare the lack of coverage that they received to the extended coverage that the conflict in Gaza has recently received in its virtual domination of the news, we can perhaps understand why some of our troops may feel that they serve in a forgotten Army.
	Thankfully, the majority of the British public do not forget our troops, but we must never forget that we are at war, and the handling of news has a vital part to play in maintaining morale both at home and on operations. Families play an increasingly important role, not least in respect of retention. That role should be recognised and taken fully into consideration by the MOD. After all, it is not that information cannot be gleaned from other sources, such as the internet; it is just that the MOD is not serving as the first port of call for the provision of reliable information, which is what it should be doing. Its core philosophy should be to be first with the news and to give the definitive overview of the operation in question.
	In the Westminster Hall debate, I also set out constructive solutions to the criticisms that I had made of the lack of coverage. A year later, howeverthe dates were almost identicalOperation Red Dagger took place, and absolutely nothing had changed. The first that we, the general public, knew that a month-long operation had been undertaken was when a report was published in  The Sunday Times on 4 January this year. Only after that did the MOD's website show a one-slot story, on the following day, 5 January.
	It seems to me that the conclusion to be drawn, just as in the previous year, was that that operation was not particularly worthy of much news coverage. Yetas was pointed out by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), who is not in the Chamber at presentthe objective of Operation Red Dagger was to secure from Taliban control ground around Lashkar Gar which we had previously been led to believe was under ISAF and Afghan control. What sort of message does that lack of information send to our troops? What sort of a media policy is that? It is almost as if the MOD media machine were seeking to diminish the support of the British public and to undermine soldiers' morale, when it should be doing exactly the opposite.
	Up to and during the Christmas period, we knew that something was afoot, because we heard about the number of deaths of service personnel, which was grim news for all of us back in the UK, but most especially for those who had a family member serving in Afghanistan. We had no knowledge of or information about what was going on, but it was obviously very tough for those on the front line. The MOD media machine performed in December 2008, as it had the previous year in December 2007, with almost total indifference. There was no narrative and no direction, and it did not show any imagination. If it is allowed to continue in that vein, public support may begin to wane and our troops may feel increasingly disillusioned and believe that they serve in a forgotten Army in a forgotten war in a forgotten land. In other words, we run the risk of defeat and disinterest being bred in our own backyard.
	The only difference between these two operations undertaken just a year apart was that the rains came earlier in 2008 than in 2007 and our troops had to operate in appalling and even more testing conditions. But where was the media coverage of that operation? Where was the reporting of a job well done? One might get the impression that the MOD public relations team is failing to provide even adequate media coverage, both to improve the morale of our troops and to keep the British public onside. Or is it that they are actually instructed by the powers-that-be to place the minimum information into the public domain? That surely would be a mistaken philosophy in this day and age, and one that could do profound damage.
	There will, of course, be those who disagree with me, but the history of both the Iraq and Afghanistan operations will eventually be written, and I doubt that it will make comfortable reading. The truth about operations in Iraq was never divulged at the outset to the public and Afghanistan is turning out to be the same. There is a great deal of catching up to do.
	It is very unsatisfactory when the success of so many British servicemen and women, serving in such difficult theatres, is not even adequately reported by the organisation that sent them there in the first place. We can surely best honour our dead by ensuring that we recognise and extol the efforts of those who are charged with completing their task of gaining victory over the insurgents. The MOD should be playing its part in full to secure that objective. It should ensure that news coverage is as accurate, professional and as current as it can possibly be. It has a great deal of catching up to do.

Alison Seabeck: May I first put on record, as have other hon. Members, our thanks to our armed services for the fantastic job that they do in difficult and dangerous circumstances and to their families and friends who support them from afar and often do not know or cannot be told what their brothers, fathers, sisters, husbands and mates are actually doing for their country? It takes a very special person to join up, but it also takes some very special people at home to cope with the uncertainty and worry that a life linked to the armed forces can bring.
	We have seen in the past 10 to 15 years a massive transformation in the role of our armed forces in terms of the type of action that they are required to take, the enemy that they have to deal with, the capability that they have to deliver on the ground and the equipment that they wear and use. We know about their ability to fight, but one of their key roles is in strengthening stability, as they are seeking to do in Afghanistan as well as responding to international emergencies. Our armed forces personnel are among the most flexible in the world, working as they do alongside staff in our Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for International Development, NGOs, civilians and of course forces from other nations. I have heard it said repeatedly that, given a choice, it is our Navy, Army and Air Force that others will choose to serve alongside.
	For too long, the contribution of our personnel was not fully understood by the wider public outside garrison towns, but that is changing. In Plymouth, to ensure that our lads and lasses are made aware of just how much we value what they do, like in many other towns and cities throughout the country, we will ensure that we welcome them back when they return from active service. Our lord mayor in Plymouth, Councillor Brian Vincent, is working to ensure there is a good civic response, not least because our lady mayoress has two relatives, including her son, who are currently serving.
	That is why, from our perspective, the publication of the service personnel Command Paper, which set out 40 commitments for support to our servicemen and women and their families, was so important. I want to focus on some of those commitments, and I know from speaking to service personnelsome on active service in Afghanistanand their families, who are my constituents, that they have been broadly welcomed. The Royal British LegionI should declare and interest in that I am a member of the Crownhill branchwhich I spoke to some months before the announcement, had been campaigning hard for the changes, as had the British Limbless Ex-Service Men's Association, which had been working on behalf of local lads who had lost one or more limbs while on active service and was seeking a significant increase in the compensation awards. Both organisations have subsequently expressed how pleased they are that the Government responded so positively.
	Mitigating the impact of service life on families is important. People at my local schools tell of the difficulties that the children of service families can face, such as the major upheaval in their lives because of the constant moving from location to location. Schools in Plymouth are very good at offering support in those circumstances, and they respond swiftly and sensitively when we lose one of our own. However, I am sure that they agree that the proposals on the statutory schools admissions code, which should take effect later this year, and the provision for enhanced early years support will help to stabilise families and make children feel more secure.
	Plymouth also has high rates of adult illiteracy, and some of that stems from people who leave the armed forces without qualifications and who often find it difficult to secure a job in the civilian sector. In turn, that can lead to street homelessness, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) has said, and to the risk of committing crime and of triggering mental health problems, which in some cases is certainly compounded by trauma in servicethat concern has already been covered at length. We now understand a little better the nature of the mental health problems that service personnel can face. However, where that is linked not to combat stress but to an inability to move back into civilian life, education becomes increasingly important, and the opportunity for people while in service to improve a range of skills, including literacy and numeracy, is vital and makes a difference.
	During a recent armed forces parliamentary scheme visit to Camp Bastion and Kandahar, I was extremely interested to meet some of those responsible for in-service training. We were told that there was a great deal of interest among personnel in getting the national vocational qualifications 1 and 2 not only for jobs when they leave the forces, but because the promotion process now requires them to have those basic skills. The additional entitlement to funding for further and higher education, which builds on the enhanced learning credits initiative, will mean that service-leavers with six years service could attain an A-level or equivalent free from tuition fees. Again, that is very welcome.
	There are also options that have existed for many years for courses that lead to accreditation in areas of military relevance. We sometimes forget that the Ministry of Defence is Britain's largest provider of education and training, offering some 7 million days to their men and women across the services and in the wider MOD. The recent announcements build on what was already on offer.
	While the importance of upskilling our forces personnel is important, so, too, is ensuring that their needs are met in a range of other areas. Other hon. Members have spoken at length about equipment, and I have to say that the newspaper cuttings about life on board HMS Daring certainly lift the spirits. It is state of the art in terms of its capability, but it has also taken great regard for the needs of service personnel on board, providing a very high quality living and working space. In fact, what we heard in Afghanistan from all ranksmuch to the surprise of some members of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I thinkwas that, in the main, they feel that the procurement process is working and that it is much more responsive. Indeed, one person told me that they had equipment coming out of their ears. I am sure that is a slight exaggeration, but it is indicative of the fact that people feel that they are now receiving what they need on the ground.
	There is always room for improvement, and it is essential to listen to the needs of the front-line soldier, as they are the ones who have to fight in excess heat and cold and have to carry the equipment they use. I am pleased to see the Jackal, which my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) has mentioned, in service. I recently visited the production line in Plymouth, and, interestingly, the manufacturers are already responding to proposals to change and tweak that particular vehicle, which have come from people who use it on the ground.
	There is no doubt that our forces still feel stretched, and that feeds back to the public in the UK. The public and the families respond by wanting to support them by sending food, e-blueys and buddy boxes. In a recent letter to my local paper, a lady suggested that we should all send food parcels to our troops, because she felt that they were undernourished and came back from the theatres in which they were serving looking thin. I would like to tell her, on the record, that the food available in the mess and in the various outlets in which I ate, alongside hundreds of people from across our services and from other nations, in Afghanistan was superb. The range of options was immense, and the food was beautifully prepared. It is probably true that an army marches on its stomach, which is why breakfast ranged from a full English to toast, omelettes, cereals and fruit, and the lunches and dinners were made up of at least two substantial courses. Clearly troops in our forward posts have a more restricted diet, but that is inevitable, as they often have to carry their food supplies with them. I am not surprised, given the heat and the activity in Afghanistan and Iraq, that people return from those theatres looking a little slimmer, but I reassure the letter writer that that is certainly not because they are underfed.
	We have to make it clear that our servicemen and women are greatly valued and that we offer them the support they need to carry out the tasks we, as a Government, set them. The Command Paper has reinforced that intention, and I am grateful to have had the opportunity to highlight some of the areas where it will make a difference for my constituents and their families.

James Gray: I rise to speak briefly. That I shall be brief is partly because of the structure of these debates, which we ought collectively to consider reorganisingperhaps there is a message in this for the usual channels, the party managers and the business managers. At a time like this in our nation's history, sticking a debate as important as this, on defence personnel, on late on a Thursday afternoon, albeit after a very worthy debate on the holocaust, on a one-line Whip, means that the least possible number of people attend and the least possible attention is given to it. We have all these Opposition day debates on Mondays and Tuesdays, but might it not be better to have a three-line Whip Opposition day debate on a Thursday afternoon and to hold a debate such as this on a Tuesday afternoon, when we can give it proper attention?
	Given the lack of available time, I hope that the House will forgive me for focusing on two or three issues relating to my constituency, which none the less have broader interest with regard to the services elsewhere. I am proud of the fact that in addition to RAF Lyneham, which I shall discuss in a moment, my constituency is home to 9 Supply Regiment at Hullavington, which I believe is the largest battalion in the British Army; 21 Signal Regiment, which is an air support regiment at Colerne; and 10 Signal Regiment at Corsham, which has an important job to do on disarming roadside bombs. In addition, a multi-billion pound investment is taking place with regard to defence communications services at Corsham, so I probably encounter as wide a range of service personnel and issues as any hon. Member in the Chamber this afternoon.

James Arbuthnot: So my hon. Friend really does not need the Chinooks, does he?

James Gray: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for that, because I shall come back to precisely that point in a moment.
	I also speak as chair of the all-party group on the Army, and I am delighted that it will be welcoming the returning brigade from Afghanistan on 23 February. It confirmed to me this afternoon that it intends to march into Parliamentwith Mr. Speaker's agreement, of coursearriving at the North Door of Westminster Hall, where I hope hon. Members will be to welcome the troops, and going thereafter to a reception on the Terrace. It is good that the all-party group is welcoming the returning troops and saying thank you to them; after all, we send them to these places, so it is right that we return the compliment.
	I pay tribute, as I have done before in a similar vein in this House, to the good people of Wootton Bassett in my constituency, who, week in, week out and in the foulest of weathers, turn out in their hundreds up and down the High street to see the coffins, as they come back through RAF Lyneham, and stop for two minutes. It is the simplest of ceremonies, with no commands. There is nothing pompous or grand about itjust the people of Wootton Bassett and the surrounding areas paying their respects to those coffins. That has happened around 100 times now, and I join them as often as I can. I wish that other towns and villages would learn that lesson from Wootton Bassettsome are beginning to do soand the way in which it pays its respects to our armed services and the contribution that they make to the defence of the realm.
	In that context, it is through RAF Lyneham that the bodies are returned from both Iraq and Afghanistan. The ceremonies that are laid on at the base are superbly well done. However, under current plans, the Hercules fleet at RAF Lyneham will be moved to RAF Brize Norton in 2012, although the delays to the A400M, which might be quite serious, may mean some delay in that transfer. However, if it goes ahead the already too busy base at RAF Brize Norton would have the added task of the repatriation of those bodies. I fear that the narrow lanes around Carterton in Oxfordshire would not be as sensible a route as that around RAF Lyneham and Wootton Bassett.
	There are some 750 civilians employed at RAF Lyneham and, if one takes into account their spouses and the associated people employed in the pubs, shops and schools supporting the base, it is obvious that if the base were to close it would be a catastrophe for the local economy. It must not be allowed to happen. Especially it must not be closed temporarily for some years while the MOD think of some other use for it. I have seen the vandals and wreckers move into RAF Wroughton when my party, when it was in government, wrongly closed the military hospital there. We should not have done that, because it was a wicked thing to do, but we did it and the site was vandalised for many years before finally being knocked down and used for other purposes. That must not be allowed to happen at RAF Lyneham.
	I am glad to hear from my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) that he has only one complaint a year about the noise from the Chinooks and that he is keen to keep them in his area. The good people of Lyneham would welcome them too if Project Belvedere, which is in its final stages of discussion at the MOD, reaches a conclusion. I am told that three of the four solutions would involve RAF Lyneham, and if the Joint Helicopter Command at RAF Odiham and other helicopters are brought there, I assure MinistersI hope that they are listening carefully as I have taken wide soundings from the local areathat they would be welcome. There would of course be great concern about the noise and the environmental downsides of the helicopters, as opposed to the Hercules, which we all love, but I know from discussions with senior people in the RAF and the Army that it would be possible to work out flying protocols so that the helicopters would not unduly interfere with the lives of local people.
	The people of my constituency would welcome the Joint Helicopter Command to RAF Lyneham with open arms, and I would make it my business to explain to any doubters that, while there might be some environmental downsides, having the helicopters would be vastly better than a new town, an extension of Heathrow airport or a prison. I hope that I speak for the bulk of my constituentsnot all, because it will be a difficult and controversial decisionwhen I say that we look forward to the outcome of Project Belvedere and the Joint Helicopter Command coming to RAF Lyneham.

Bob Russell: It is an especial privilege and honour to represent a garrison town. I pay tribute to 16 Air Assault Brigade, which undertook a gruelling tour of duty in Afghanistan last year. I visited British troops in Afghanistan twice last year, first as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, and then in the autumn to meet soldiers from Colchester, many of whom had suffered injuries. Sadly, there have also been several deaths.
	Earlier, I praised the Royal Anglian Regiment, the regional regiment that Mr. Deputy Speaker and I are proud to say isso we are toldthe best recruited regiment in the Army. I pay tribute to them too. I also want to praise the MOD media people, who are doing a good job under difficult circumstances. I want to highlight the Kajaki dam exercise, in which all four battalions of the Parachute Regiment were engaged. It was an incredible achievement which received massive publicity, and I and others had the privilege of meeting many of those young men just one week after the culmination of that extraordinary exploit. I believe that it was the first time in 60 years that all battalions of the Parachute Regiment had been engaged on a single mission. In passing, we should praise the actor Ross Kemp and those who are doing so much with him to bring into our homes the real business of what is going on in Afghanistan. I assume that the MOD publicity people had some involvement in that.
	The Royal British Legion, as we have heard, does a good job, as do many of the charitable and support organisations. I want to single out Veterans Aid, which is dealing with those former members of our armed forces who have fallen on really tough times. Perhaps more needs to be done with that.
	I recognise the points made by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) about the welcoming home process and the tributes being paid to those who have lost their lives. That is precisely how it is in the garrison town of Colchester. The welcome home parade was attended by the Secretary of State for Defence and a service was held for those who had returned safely and in recognition of those who, sadly, did not. On two occasions, the town came together for military funerals; the other soldiers who had lost their lives returned to their home towns and cities. I agree entirely that where there is a military presence, the civilian community comes together.
	The House of Commons Library has put together a very useful debate pack. If people do not have it, I recommend it. It is a fantastic document. I praise the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), for the introduction of national armed forces day. I shall come in a minute to my favourite subject, housing.
	Incidentally, I should have mentioned one point, about 16 Air Assault Brigade. I have had the pleasure of welcoming four separate groups to Parliament. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister, because he welcomed three of those groups to No. 10, invited them in and showed them round. It is often said that the Prime Minister is not interested, and it is not usually my job to praise him, but I praise him for taking time out to ensure that those young menand a few young women, toocould have thanks given personally to them by the Prime Minister.
	Back in the autumn, the Under-Secretary said:
	As promised in the Service Personnel Command Paper we are also improving access to health, housing and education.
	He will know from his recent visit to Colchester that although the new Merville barracks is, I believe, the best military accommodation in the country for single personnel, the family accommodation still has a long way to go. With in excess of 200 empty dwellings, it does not represent good use of public assets. It is also not good use of public money to upgrade properties to enhance the value of privatised houses now owned by Annington Homes. I recognise that the previous Conservative Government were responsible for that, but surely the Government should find a way to ensure that money invested from the public purse in somebody else's property is reflected in a buy-back, so that the value of the improvements and modernisation goes towards the repurchase price. Such a scheme to buy those properties back could use the same wonderful, very generous terms that the previous Government used in selling them.
	Let me draw the attention of the House to the Defence Committee's Educating Service Children report, to which I referred earlier. It would be inappropriate to go into long detail, but I merely draw attention to recommendation 5, which states:
	The MoD and local education authorities should begin planning for the impact that the creation of Super Garrisons will have on pupil numbers in schools located near Service bases.
	I invite the Defence Committee to revisit that recommendation, and I invite the Ministry of Defence to consider whether decisions made this week square with that recommendation.

Gerald Howarth: We have had a very good debate, if, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) said, somewhat truncated. It is unfortunate that a debate on all those men and women200,000 of our armed forcesshould be curtailed to the extent that it has been, and I hope the usual channels on both sides will seek to find a way in which the House can debate more adequately these very important issues.

Quentin Davies: On an Opposition day.

Gerald Howarth: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. He may only just have become a Minister, having crossed the Floor, but he ought to understand that these matters are a responsibility of the Government in the first instance, and therefore I think that the whole House believes that it would have been better if we could have had a longer debate on these matters. Perhaps the Minister will at some point tell us when we will be able to discuss those grey metal, flat-topped 65,000-tonne displaced things, about which we are not allowed otherwise to speak today.
	We have had some interesting speeches from Members on both sides. I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) and for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck), who were both on the armed forces parliamentary scheme visit with me in Afghanistan. They gave an excellent account of what has been going on there and reported faithfully how well our armed forces are performing in very difficult circumstances. Reference was made to the commanding officer of 42 Commando, Lieutenant Colonel Stickland, and I strongly endorse everything that was said about him. His card will be marked; he is going places. He is a very able officer.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) was absolutely right when she pointed out, in a telling speech, the failure of the media properly to cover what is going on out there. The universal cry from our armed forcessoldiers, sailors and airmenout in theatre is that only casualties get reported. They appreciate the fact that they are reported, but they would also appreciate it if the sort of commentary that was given on the Kajaki dam were greatly broadened to cover other areas where they are performing so well.
	My hon. Friend made mention of the contribution that Ross Kemp has made, and the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) endorsed that. I am afraid I was unable to attend the preview last week, but I have high hopes that many of our constituents will turn on their televisions on Sunday night to watch Ross Kemp on Sky, reporting as he did so well last time round.
	My hon. Friend is right to say that we need the Ministry of Defence to look again at how it can improve access for journalists, and in a sense try to get the journalists to understand. I am not blaming the Department entirely, but I do think this is a real issue, and if the Department needs to redouble its efforts, I am sure that it will do so. As I think the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), knows, my experience with media ops in Aldershot has not been entirely happy, and I think that sometimes the media ops people are not operating in the best interests of what Ministers want.

Ann Winterton: rose

Linda Gilroy: rose

Gerald Howarth: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Ann Winterton: Briefly, the MOD should be driving the news agenda, not the other way round.

Gerald Howarth: Indeed. If possible it should do that, but as I have also said to my hon. Friend, there is a real responsibility on the media as well to step up to their responsibilities and the challenges that they face. Perhaps I might say to Ministers: putting people in uniform in charge again might be the answer, to ensure that they get the message across in the way that they are best able to do, as they are in uniform.

Linda Gilroy: Following the edition of the Helmand Herald produced by the deputy editor of the Plymouth Heralda voluntary initiative on her partwould the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that our local papers also have a role to play?

Gerald Howarth: Absolutely; I entirely endorse that. The  Aldershot News does not exactly the same job, but [ Interruption. ] I am hearing noises off about Colchester. I am sure that such a thing happens in garrison towns, but families throughout the land are contributing to a fantastic effort on behalf of our armed forces. Families who do not necessarily live in garrison towns need to be informed of what our brave men and women are doing in our name.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), who represents my neighbouring constituency, made a strong case for the Chinooks to remain in Odiham. I am bound to say that I entirely endorse that point. I am sorry for my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshirebad luckbut there is a real problem when the Ministry of Defence is trying to compress our armed forces into an ever-reducing footprint across the land. We will have to address that problem when we come to office, which we hope will happen shortly.
	The hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) said that the nation owed a duty of care, and that will be accepted on both sides of the House. He also talked about the welcome increase in compensation, which was debated when we considered the Bill that became the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Act 2004. I am glad that the Government have at last responded to the public outcry. We must address the tendency of ex-service personnel to turn up in prison in ever-larger numbers. My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) drew particular attention to post-traumatic stress disorder and the proposals that we hope to be able to implement to ensure that that is picked up. This nation faces a bow wave of problems to which it will, at some point, have to pay attention.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire referred to the JPA, about which I have also heard complaints. The Ministry of Defence, like other Government Departments, seems to have problems with IT, and the situation is causing the military great concern. I met someone at Odiham who had found that the system had taken 500 out of his account, although that happened some time ago. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for North Durham, will address the problem in his winding-up speech.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury set out the formidable challenges that must be met by the Ministry of Defence if it is to have any hope of maintaining our armed forces' capability to fulfil the missions with which they are tasked. I am afraid that the greatest of those challenges is clearly resources. I hear that the Ministry of Defence is looking for savings of between 1 billion and 2 billion. Additionally, procurement costs must be rising due to the fall of the pound, so the Ministry is in a dire situation.
	Nothing better exemplified the high tempo of operations to which personnel are subjected than when I had the privilege of presenting campaign medals just before Christmas to Royal Air Force personnel at RAF Odiham, which is in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire. RAF Odiham is the home of the Chinook helicopter force that forms the backbone of logistic movement and, most importantly, provides casualty evacuation in theatre in Afghanistan. A number of those receiving medals were young people who told me that they had done five tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. We need to salute these young men and women for what they are doing.
	That was why I became worried when I read some remarks attributed to General Sir Richard Dannatt, who has been an outstanding commander. He was quoted by  The Guardianso Labour Members will have to take this as trueas saying:
	We have seriously stretched our soldiers to the very limit. Many families and marriages have unfortunately fallen victim to the relentless pace of operations.
	That is a serious indictment, and it is little wonder that the armed forces are nearly 6,000 short and increasingly dependent on new Commonwealth personnel to backfill, as the hon. Member for North Devon pointed out. The most recent figures show that those personnel account for more than 7,000 of our forces' current strength.

James Arbuthnot: I ask my hon. Friend to comment on the announcement that Radio 4 has just made that the Ministry of Defence plans to put a 15 per cent. cap on the number of foreign nationals in the Royal Logistics Corps, the Royal Army Dental Corps and Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps. I hope that the Minister will have time to comment on that, because it seems strange that the story should be on the BBC when there is a debate on armed forces personnel in the House of Commons today.

Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention, because I have raised the issue before, and it has not been addressed by Ministers. If the news has been mentioned on the BBC, the House is entitled to be informed. I hope that the Minister will deal with that when he winds up.
	The latest performance report by the Ministry of Defence shows that there are serious shortages across the board. Let me list one or two. There are just three Royal Navy Harrier instructors, against a requirement of seven. There is a 38 per cent. shortage of Merlin helicopter pilots, and there are just 95 Army bomb disposal corporals and sergeants, against a requirement of 222a 57 per cent. shortfall. The RAF is short of 88 loadmasters, a trade critical to operations in the fields. We also know that only 85 per cent. of the armed forces are fully available and fit; 15 per cent. are not fit. The Government have a target of 90 per cent., and it is clearly not being met. My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) drew attention to that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury drew attention to the harmony guidelines. The Royal Logistic Corps has a 15-month average tour interval, against a target of 24 months. That cannot be sustained. Furthermore, there is an outflow of personnel. We now know that in the year ending 1 September last year, the voluntary outflow rate of RAF officers was 3 per cent., against a long-term sustainable rate of 2.5 per cent. The figure for other RAF ranks is 5.8 per cent., against a sustainable rate of 4 per cent. Clearly, if that trend continues, there will be serious consequences for the maintenance of capability. In the first six months of last year, there was a net outflow of something like 1,250 peopleoverwhelmingly, that means 12,200 experienced people being replaced by 10,960 rookies.
	The Prime Minister is falling over himself to ingratiate himself with the new US President, so who can doubt that he will press service chiefs to accede to any request from the United States for more troops in Afghanistan? I understand that one battlegroup is all that can be afforded; Ministers need to tell us how many troops they are prepared to contribute. The truth is that our armed forces are overstretched. They have received much better equipment in the form of improved armoured vehicles, as has been mentioned, but the Snatch Land Rover remains in operation, which causes great concern for the safety and security of our armed forces, and we were told just before Christmas that a whole series of programmes were to be cut, curtailed, reduced or scrapped altogether. That is not at all satisfactory. If the Government want our armed forces to do what they are being asked to do, the Government have to back them with resources; otherwise they will have failed our armed forces.
	I will conclude on a positive note, by paying tribute to the British public, who I think do support our armed forces. The welcome home parades have been mentioned. I salute Wootton Bassett for what it has done, and I salute my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire for what he has done as chairman of the all-party Army group. The nation owes a huge debt of gratitude to our armed forces, and the more that we can show that we are understanding of their commitment and the sacrifice that they are making on behalf of all of us in this country, the better we will be able to impress on them that we really are concerned about them and value them, and will do much more than we are doing to ensure that they get a fair deal from the Government of this country, whoever is in power.

Kevan Jones: I start by echoing the sentiments expressed by Members in all parts of the House who paid tribute to the commitment and valour of our armed forces who have done a tremendous job on our behalf, and this debate is a good way of saying a big thank you to them. Obviously, if I do not cover points that have been raised, I will write to individuals, but I should like to answer directly that raised by the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot). Yes, the announcement has been made. As to whether I am angry that the BBC got the story before the announcement was made to Parliament, I am, and I shall look into that as a matter of urgency. I shall certainly do all Members present the courtesy of writing to them with the reason why that happened.
	I want to address some of the points that the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) raised. He seems to think that the more parliamentary questions asked, the greater a party's commitment to defence. Whoever is organising this in the Conservative party, may I ask that duplicates are not submitted? Two or three hon. Members have been doing so on a regular basis over the past week, and it ruins my Sunday afternoon having to sign the duplicates off when they come in my Red Box.
	The subject of time limits was raised. Under the scheme, five years is the time limit, which is more than the three-year limit in civil litigation. There is a provision for those time limits to be relaxed and extended in certain casesthe late onset of illness, for examplewhere a claimant cannot submit a claim until the illness is identified.
	The hon. Member for Westbury and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) spoke about veterans in prison. That is an issue which I take very seriously, as would all hon. Members who care about veterans. The figure that was highlighted is not correct. A study is under way to identify the number of veterans in prison and how we should respond to that.
	On decompression time, I agree with the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell). When I have spoken to individuals coming back from operations, I found that the last thing they want to do is spend two weeks in Cyprus. I think we have got the time right.
	The hon. Member for Westbury should not denigrate the role that civil servants play in theatre. Some of them are in extremely dangerous situations, doing a tremendous job in support of our armed forces.

Andrew Murrison: Will the Minister give way?

Kevan Jones: I will not, because I have limited time.
	The issue of visits to schools was raised last year. I will have no truck with any organisation trying to stop our servicemen and women going into schools. In my constituency, my experience, which is shared by many hon. Members, is that most schools welcome servicemen and women because they are a force for good and they make good role models. Around armed forces day on 27 June I would like to see more of our armed forces going into schools to project positive messages.
	May I put on record the fact that the defence training review is going ahead and is affordable? There have been delays but the momentum exists. The work on a successor to Land Securities Trillium is well advanced and an announcement will be made shortly.
	Reference was made to stand-alone military hospitals and Haslar. I have to say to the hon. Member for Westbury that I wish the Opposition would not make a political issue out of that. When his party was in power, it closed military hospitals. That was the right decision, supported by the Defence Committee's report last year, which also stated:
	We also support the decision by the MoD to disengage from the Haslar site.
	That decision ensures the best medical care for our armed forces. To highlight one such site is a mistake.
	I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) and for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck), who are strong advocates, and say a big thank you to the Royal Marines in their constituencies for their dedication and for the role that they play in Afghanistan. I also pay tribute to the lord mayor of Plymouth, Councillor Brian Vincent, who is working hard to make sure that the parade is a success.
	The hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) raised a number of issues, including pay. I do not accept that the pay for our armed forces is as he described. The basic salary is between 16,270 and 25,182. In addition, there are operational allowances of 2,320, council tax relief of 240, and the longer service separation allowance of 1,100. That would leave an individual on a six-month tour in receipt of about 11,500. Can we do more and try to advocate more for our armed forces? Yes, we can. In the past few years, the Government have shown that they have accepted the recommendations of the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body. That has meant that the armed forces have had some of the better pay increases in the public sector.
	The hon. Gentleman also mentioned nuclear test veterans. Obviously, I cannot go into much detail as the court case is ongoing. However, I want to scotch the rumour, which is nonsense, that somehow the legal action is a technicality. Defending the cases has been made more difficult as time has passed, so the current case is to determine the issue of time limits. I should like to put on record the fact that the notion that other countries are compensating the individuals involved and we are not is wrong. We are. Those who can show that their medical condition is related to their service can apply for the war pension. That is clear.
	The hon. Gentleman also spoke about the Gurkhas, which is my responsibility. The Government have given good supportnot only to Gurkhas in service who are not in receipt of pensions, but in allowing those who served after 1997 to settle in this country. Some 6,000 have already done so. The hon. Gentleman said that a technical point was involved, but that is not true: the High Court held that setting the date was justified as that was when there was the move from Hong Kong to the UK. The role of the Gurkhas is tremendously important.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow talked about homeless veterans and veterans in prison. The York university study has been useful in trying to ascertain the extent of the problem of veteran homelessness in London. My hon. Friend rightly says that that is less of a problem than it was 10 years ago. Before Christmas, I chaired a meeting of the Veterans Forum that was specifically about homelessness, and I am determined to do research in other parts of the country so that we can provide the support that such individuals need. I am thinking of the excellent projects at Mike Jackson house, which gives support to homeless veterans. I part company with my hon. Friend on the issue of under-18s. If he cares to visit the Army foundation college in Harrogate, the sixth-form college at Welbeck or Catterick itself, he will see tremendous work in supporting and developing young people and providing some of them with educational opportunities on which they have missed out.
	The right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire mentioned the joint personnel administration scheme. It is firmly on my radar screen. Yes, mistakes were made early on; savings may have been taken out when the RAF first introduced it, and that led to some of the problems. Overall, however, it is a good system, and compared with other IT infrastructure projects across Whitehall, it is a success story. I am conscious that we now need to ensure that it beds in. However, we should not try to pull it apartthe three services must not try to reinvent what they had before, because that would lead to further problems. I should put on the record the fact that the issue is a standing item on the agenda for when I meet Vice-Admiral Wilkinson, the deputy Chief of the Defence Staff.
	I understand the frustration of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) about Project Belvedere: in the past few months, I have found quite a few things frustrating as I have tried to drive things forward.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) raised a number of issues and I shall write to her about the specifics. The head of the Army and I are clear that bullying and racist behaviour are not acceptable anywhere in the armed forces. She mentioned The Undercover Soldier. I cannot say much more about individual cases because, as she knows, an investigation is under way. However, the Adjutant-General and I will visit Catterick next month to look at the work being done there and to see what can be done to address some of the issues. My hon. Friend is aware of some of the excellent work being carried out by Lynn Farr and Daniel's Trust, for example.
	I accept some of the criticisms made by the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton). However, some Members from her party have tabled questions about what we are spending on press officers. Such work is done by dedicated men and women, many of them in the armed forces.
	Finally, I should like to say a big thank you to the people of Wootton Bassett for their work in honouring the dead who are returned. I also thank everyone
	 Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Business without Debate

Business of the House

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Wednesday 4 February, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Secretary Jacqui Smith relating to Police Grant Report not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion, and shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Secretary Hazel Blears relating to Local Government Finance not later than six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion relating to Police Grant Report; proceedings may continue after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply. (Mr. Spellar.)

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (BLACK AND MINORITY ETHNIC VICTIMS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. (Mr. Spellar.)

Sally Keeble: I am very pleased to have this opportunity to raise an issue that has been of great concern to me for the whole time that I have been an MP. Over the years, the Northampton Bangladeshi Association has hosted for me special advice surgeries for women. I have really appreciated that, together with its support and help in identifying women in the community who need help and support. One of the issues that has come up repeatedly is domestic violence. Two things strike me about the cases that the association has brought to my attention: first, the sheer scale of the suffering of the women; and secondly, the incredible difficulty that those women have in accessing services. That is why the big ask that I am going to make of my hon. Friend the Minister is for a dedicated funding stream from central Government to support work for domestic violence victims in black and minority ethnic communities.
	As well as paying tribute to the work done by women in the Bangladeshi community to support other women who have been victims of domestic violence, I want to put on record my appreciation of the men of the community in Northampton, who have facilitated and supported the advice surgery and have, particularly in recent meetings, recognised that that is a real issue that needs to be addressed in and with the community by finding positive and constructive ways forward.
	I also pay tribute to the pioneering work done by Southall Black Sisters, who have helped me with cases and provided advice for this speech. I thank the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and acknowledge the fact that I have drawn from its outstanding report, I can't tell people what is happening at home, which brings together information about domestic violence in south Asian communities and its impact on women and children. Tomorrow sees the publication of another landmark report, this time by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the second edition of Map of Gaps, which identifies some of the shortcomings that I will discuss.
	The scale of domestic violence is well documented. It affects about 3 million women each year, and it is estimated to cost society about 40 billion each year in England and Wales alone. Despite all the progress that has been made in recent years in tackling the problemI think that everybody recognises that the Labour Government have given outstanding attention to this and brought forward some major policy developmentsstill, unfortunately, far too few women report domestic violence, seek help or pursue their violent partners.
	In looking at the experience of black and ethnic minority women, I want to emphasise that this debate is specifically about domestic violence and support for victims. There has been a great deal of discussion in this place about forced marriages, honour killings and the like, but there has been neither discussion nor action to support the specific needs of women in different black and minority ethnic communities who experience domestic violence in their day-to-day lives. I recognise that in some cases forced marriages and other issues might provide some context, but I want to focus on the specific experiences of the women.

Virendra Sharma: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. We had an Adjournment debate on domestic violence only a few months ago, where the Solicitor-General acknowledged the role of Southall Black Sisters. There was to be a judicial review of that group's funding, and she assured the House that funding would be the Government's main consideration on domestic violence. I hope that after tonight's debate, there will be further funding and that the issue of resources will be resolved.

Sally Keeble: I agree completely. I spoke to Southall Black Sisters shortly before that, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right that there were real problems with the funding for that organisation. We were all extremely glad that its court case went well, and we hope that it will be secure for the future and provide a great deal of advice on funding streams that could help women in other communities and in towns such as mine, so that they can draw on that experience to get improved services.
	There is very little information about the scale of domestic violence in black and minority ethnic communities, but in any event, I would not want a dedicated funding stream to be based on numbers. Even if the prevalence of domestic violence were the same as in white communities, the women who are the victims suffer the consequences quite differently, and sometimes more acutely, because of the problems that they have in accessing services. I would not argue that their suffering is greater, because violence is appalling for any victim, but it has a different impact on women in different communities. For instance Southall Black Sisters found that south Asian women are three times more likely than others to kill themselves because of abusive practices in the family.
	Drawing on the findings of Southall Black Sisters and the NSPCC report, as well as on my experience of supporting my constituents, I wish to mention some of the issues that make the experience of black and minority ethnic women different. First, there is the real problem of social isolation. Women who might only recently have arrived in the UK, or who are at home with young children, are by definition isolated. Walking out of their home because of the violence of a partner is difficult for any woman, but for those who have come from abroad and depend wholly on their in-laws, it is perhaps doubly hard.
	There are also language problems. I know that we have policies about people learning English, but the reality is that a young wife coming from abroad may not be able to access information or services easily. It is not only language that can be a barrier. There can be cultural barriers that women have to overcome before they act on a completely unacceptable situation. They might not know their rights, and despite the Foreign Office's work in some countries to provide information, they still might not be aware that they do not have to tolerate what happens to them. They might not want to go outside the family, and they might not know that they should go to the police. The result, as set out in the NSPCC report, is that women from the south Asian community remain in abusive relationships for an average of at least 10 years before even seeking help.
	Immigration status is another of the biggest problems. I find, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Sharma) and other Members do, that a number of women come over on a spousal visa but then do not apply for indefinite leave to remain, normally because they leave that to their in-laws. Often when they leave the marital home, it is without indefinite leave and often without their passport, which they have handed in. Sometimes their visa has expired.
	The Government have rightly created a procedure for fast-tracking the immigration status of domestic violence victims, but for a number of women there is still real fear that if they leave the marital home, they will end up being deported. In addition, although the procedures can work extremely well, it can be hard for women who have been isolated in the home to get the evidence that they need to prove the domestic violence.
	Discrimination is also a problem for women who are turned away from public services. Over the years, research has shown the different access that different communities have to public services. The consequences for the domestic violence victim can be profound. A report by the Fawcett Society found that, on average, women suffering domestic violence have 11 contacts with services before they get the help that they need. For black women, the number increases to 17 contacts before they get help.
	Overall, there is the problem of poverty. The communities from which some of the women come are among the most disadvantaged. Some of the women have no independent income or even independent money. It is hard to leave a marital home, especially with children, unless some money is available. Some of the women have no recourse to public funds, and that is firmly stamped on their passports.
	It might be helpful if I give a couple of examples, which show the impact that the different factors have on the women, and the scale of the suffering of some of the women whom I have seen over the years. One was a young Bangladeshi woman, who married a British man from Tower Hamlets and came to live in his family home in the east end. Soon after she arrived, he started to hit her, and so did his mother. She became pregnant and had a baby girl. She managed to gain access to different servicesat one stage, she went to the GP because she was not well. However, she could not talk about the violence, because a member of her husband's family accompanied her and acted as interpreter.
	The woman finally managed to escape with her little girl and they came to Northampton, where she stayed with friends. She was deeply traumatised by what had happened. The support worker at the Bangladeshi association brought her to see me, and the first time that I saw her, she was suffering from, among other things, TB. It took about three years to win her indefinite leave to remain, during which time she was reduced to penury and repeatedly threatened with deportation. When her friend could no longer support her, social services put her into a bed-and-breakfast hostel, where she stayed for almost a year.
	According to housing rules, the woman should have been moved much earlier, but the rules that bar families with children from being placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation apply only to housing authorities, not to social services departments, and a social services department placed her in a bed-and-breakfast hostel in the interests of her child. That is a discrepancy in the rules and complete nonsense. Protection for homeless families should be aligned across departments. This year, some four years after she fled her marital home in the east end, she walked into a home of her own in Northampton with her not quite so little girl.
	A second case, from some years ago, was particularly appalling and has had a deep and lasting impression on me. It involved a woman who fled when her husband attacked her with a knife. She travelled to the north to stay with family members before returning to Northampton to reclaim her three children, who had remained with her in-laws. She was pregnant when she left her marital home and, when she returned, she went into premature labour. The baby was born with a serious disability, and she stayed in hospital with him for 10 days before his life support was turned off, and then for several weeks because she had nowhere to go. The hospital was very good and allowed her to stay. She had a little room with literally all her belongings in a bag beside the bed. It took months, if not years, to get her children returned to her, with everyone's immigration status sorted out, and to be accepted by a local housing authority.
	I have outlined some of the problems that women face, and I want now to consider the services that are available to support them. The NSPCC report highlights a profound lack of services. Although two thirds of all local authorities provide services for domestic violence victims, only one in 1046 out of 434have specialised services for black and minority ethnic communities. Ninety-five per cent. are in England and almost half in London, so there are only 23 services for the UK outside London. Many of the supporting services are in the voluntary sector, and the financial pressures on the third sector are a problem, as has been identified by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and, I am sure, by every hon. Member's constituency experience. Indeed, in Northampton, the services for black and minority ethnic communities have been disproportionately cut.
	In addition, voluntary sector funding can be time limited. In Northampton, the Bangladeshi association applied for a lottery grant to fund a support worker to deal with domestic violence. That was an outstanding success, and two successive workers with quite remarkable commitment brought forward some exceptional cases and made a real contribution to changing the way in which things worked locally and the lives of many women. However, the funds were time limited, and the funding of the posts was not picked up by the public sector. The support services therefore disappeared, along with the knowledge and experience that those workers had built up. We also have an outstanding mainstream project in Northampton, the Sunflower Centre, which deals with domestic violence and works with black and minority ethnic communities. However, it does not have outreach services to reach the most excluded communities, including the Somali community.
	I have taken up this issue with the Government before, and I have written to some of my hon. Friend the Minister's colleagues a number of times. Their response is usually that funding is available in a number of partnerships, and that it can be accessed through those partnerships. That is all very well on paper, but in practice, chasing funding through an inter-agency partnership is not a realistic proposition for communities that are often marginalised and competing for funds with some of the most powerful organisations in our society.
	The NSPCC has set out proposals to improve multi-agency working, and I certainly support them. However, I believe that we need a specific funding stream to provide financing for services for women from black and minority ethnic communities who are the victims of domestic violence. Such services could be provided within organisations in the community concerned, or through outreach work to enable women to access mainstream services. The result of the Southall Black Sisters court case, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Sharma) has referred, showed not only that such funding is permissible under the law, but that the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 actively requires it. The same court case also showed that equality work is essential to improve social cohesion. The provision of such a funding stream is possible via the inter-departmental ministerial group on domestic violence, which I believe is chaired by my hon. Friend the Minister's Department and which has provided real leadership on domestic violence issues in the pastfor example, through the provision of more funding for refuges.
	The Government have done a great deal to tackle the enormous problem of domestic violence and to stem the loss of lifetwo women a week are killed by their partnersby introducing legislation, providing funding for refuges, establishing the domestic violence courts and improving housing rights for homeless families. However, there are still key areas where action is needed, and one of those involves dealing with the problems facing women in the black and minority ethnic communities to ensure that they can access the services that they need and exercise their human right to live free of the fear of violence at home. Action is long overdue on that, and I ask my hon. Friend to provide assurances for my constituents and many other women up and down the country who have suffered in silence for too long.
	In closing, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall, who has remained in the Chamber tonight because of his real commitment to this cause.

Meg Hillier: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) for raising this subject, and for her eloquent and well-researched speech. She has a strong track record on this issue, as she has demonstrated today. I welcome this opportunity to set out how the Government are responding to some of the issues that she has raised. I will not repeat all the statistics that she highlighted. Suffice it to say that we all know that domestic violence is a devastating crime that impacts on all our communities, and it is important that we address all the points that she has made.
	Organisations that deal with domestic violence have played a critical role, and we owe them a significant debt of gratitude. My hon. Friend mentioned Southall Black Sisters, and there are others that have also worked with those suffering domestic violence in the black, Asian and minority ethnic communities.
	Over the last couple of years, we have been working to ensure that our centrally driven initiatives also join up at regional and local level. We may have to agree to differ at this point, although we are always keen in government to listen to how things are working on the ground. I do not believe that we can fix everything through Whitehall central funding and it has been a drive in government to devolve funding down to a local level so that decisions about funding particular services are made at that local level. It should be more responsive because the groups are dealt with much more directly. Some of the groups dealing with domestic violence issues, particularly in these communities, are quite small, and it is not always easy necessarily to get it right from Whitehall.
	This drive to the local level has been important across government and across a number of Departments that deal with these issues. It is important to carry on with that, but as I said, we are always keen to learn more about how the excluded groups that my hon. Friend has highlighted are accessing services. We continue to talk with her, the all-party group and other groups involved about how that can be done more effectively.
	One supporting strand of funding is through the Supporting People programme, which was launched in 2003. The aim is to create a coherent funding and policy context for the provision of housing-related support to the most vulnerable. Local authorities rather than central Government determine how they focus that funding, based on the needs and priorities they have identified in their five-year strategies. I visited the Nia project in my constituency last week and I know that it is effectively using a lot of that Supporting People money. I am not unaware of some of the challenges that that particular funding stream presents, but I think it is right that it is done at the local level.
	We have evidence from local authorities concerning their investment of Supporting People funding in domestic violence cases: the evidence is positive. Local authorities are spending more of their funding on domestic violence services. A rise from 61.6 million in 2006-07 to 64.5 million in 2008 delivered increased capacity for this vulnerable groupfrom 8,660 units of support in 2006-07 to 9,520 in 2007-08. The proportion of black and ethnic minority women who accessed housing-related support has increased from 26.8 per cent. in 2003-04 to 28.9 per cent. in 2007. One might say that that is a modest increase, but I think that is good progress in a year. We need to make sure that all those who need the services are accessing them. Last year, more than 6,000 women were successfully supported to achieve greater control, choice and involvement in their community. A number of them were also supported with their mental health problems.
	The Nia project and the Southall Black Sisters are two examples of groups that do valuable work in this area, and there are countless others. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Sharma) raised the issue of increasing the Southall Black Sisters' funding. The Home Office has recently provided 20,000 in order to strengthen its performance management arrangements, so that it can provide national data on black and ethnic minority victims of domestic violence. The Home Office continues to work with the Black Sisters on a step-by-step basis to provide advice on domestic violence. We recognise the benefits.

Virendra Sharma: rose

Meg Hillier: I can give way only briefly.

Virendra Sharma: On behalf of the Southall Black Sisters, I would like to thank the Minister and the Home Office for providing the support they needed. At the same time, there is a need to work closely with the local authorities so that they are asked to work closely with local voluntary and third-sector groups. In this case, there were some difficulties in the past.

Meg Hillier: In a couple of sentences, my hon. Friend has encapsulated the challenges of dealing with what are often small groups, although the Southall Black Sisters are well established. He is right to focus on the distance between Whitehall and those groups and to highlight the key role that local authorities play. I will certainly ensure that Ministers in the Department for Communities and Local Government are aware of my hon. Friend's concerns in that direction. It is for them to take up these issues as well as for the Home Office to deal with them overall, working with other colleagues in government to promote issues around domestic violence and provide the solutions that we are trying to draw up.
	I should say that we make some central allocations of funding. For example, we are putting nearly 1 million into a matrix of helplines to support a range of victims. It is sensible for some money to come from central Government, but we also need to ensure that we allow for the responsiveness that local funding can, at its best, provide. Where there are problems, we are monitoring them by examining the data of the groups accessing these services and by making other evaluations.
	We know that we need to do more to ensure that victims of domestic violence in black and minority ethnic communities also benefit from interventions. Our delivery plan for 2008-09 specifically includes activity to support those groups, and that work will continue into 2009-10.
	Let me give some examples. The Department for Communities and Local Government has commissioned three pieces of homelessness and domestic violence research. Each of those projects will involve consideration of the needs of specific groups, including black and minority ethnic households. We want to understand better what provision is out there, and whether it meets current need. There will be a report late in 2009. I have already asked officials in the DCLG to ensure that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North is kept informed and updated on the progress of the research, and will alert Ministers in the Department as well. I think it important for her expertise to be used.
	My hon. Friend raised the issue of foreign-born wives and those with uncertain immigration status. That issue is important to me, as an immigration Minister. We have been working with the statutory and voluntary sectors to find ways in which to support victims with no recourse to public funds. We are also discussing one of the points that my hon. Friend raised with the Association of Chief Police Officers: we are trying to establish whether ACPO can assist in the process of obtaining formal documents such as passports for women applying for indefinite leave to remain on grounds of domestic violence. We need to obtain the evidence. We need a reasonable threshold, but not a bar that will make it too difficult for women in the circumstances described so eloquently and movingly by my hon. Friend to gain such status.
	We believe that the scheme that we announced in March last year will strengthen the way in which domestic violence cases are considered, enabling the vulnerable victims described by my hon. Friend to gain access to additional support. We have been working closely with the No Recourse to Public Funds network and other stakeholders on the details of the scheme. It has taken longer than it should have, but we must get it right. The delay is frustrating for all of us who are involved, but it is important for us to launch a scheme that it is effective, rather than launching a scheme for the sake of meeting a deadline.
	About 500 women try to escape from abusive partners each year, but cannot gain access to emergency housing or other benefits because of their immigration status. That affects not just those women but their children, and a wider network of people. We have been working to try to deal with it. I am partly responsible for some of the work of the UK Border Agency. The DCLG has been working with the agency and other groups, including a network of local authorities, to explore better solutions.
	As I said earlier, we are developing a scheme that will provide a contribution to the housing and living costs of people who are granted indefinite leave to remain as the spouse or partner of a United Kingdom national, but who are then subject to domestic violence within their two-year probationary period. I should be happy to discuss that and some of the surrounding issues with my hon. Friend on another occasion, because we need to get it right.
	Although negotiations are still in progress, it is expected that a one-off lump sum will be paid by the UK Border Agency to the supporting organisation. That is one of the reasons for the complications: a great many organisations are involved, and it is important for us to give Government moneytaxpayers' moneyto organisations that we know to have a good track record.
	Further work is being done. Unfortunately not enough time is available for me to describe all of it, but it is worth mentioning our specialist domestic violence courts, independent domestic violence advisers and multi-agency risk assessment conferences, all of which are key to supporting victims of domestic violence. We are collecting ethnicity data to ensure that those services are reaching all communities. At each step, we are trying to monitor the way in which all services meet the needs of some of the groups mentioned by my hon. Friend. The Government have been working with voluntary organisations, particularly through the DCLG, to develop a step-by-step guide for women in black and minority ethnic communities who are victims. Unfortunately it too has been delayed, but we hope to publish it in the spring.
	The Government are engaged in the issue with a variety of stakeholders. I know that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have contributed. On Tuesday 3 February, there will be a meeting of stakeholders with experience in this area.
	We know there is still more for us to do. The Home Secretary has already announced that there will be a public consultation on a violence against women strategy. I encourage all organisations and communities to participate. I hope that between us my hon. Friend and I, along with other hon. Membersalthough none is present nowcan encourage all Members to urge their local organisations to contribute. It is important for contributions to be made throughout the United Kingdom. I should be happy to work with the all-party group on domestic violence in helping to disseminate information about the consultation, and to ensure that proper contributions are made to inform the development of the strategy so that we can tackle the issues raised by my hon. Friend.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.